UK terror threat level raised to 'severe'

First topic message reminder :

The terror threat to the UK has been raised from substantial to severe, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

This means that a terrorist attack is "highly likely", although Mrs May stressed that there is no information to suggest an attack is imminent.

She said: "The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) is responsible for setting the national threat level. That informs the decisions of security professionals across the public and private sectors about the appropriate level of security in place across the United Kingdom.

"JTAC's judgements about that threat level are made on the basis of the very latest intelligence and are independent of ministers.

"JTAC has today raised the threat level to the UK from international terrorism from SUBSTANTIAL to SEVERE. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely, but there is no intelligence to suggest that an attack is imminent."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28986271

Wonder what this is all about?. Severe but not imminent. In other words - don't panic - YET

Original Quill wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

This is what I have been saying all along.  It is a religious issue, not a factional one.

There is a civil war brewing, and the contestants want the west to come in and fight it for them.

Dear me, it is an ideology of that religion, try reading it

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

That's right, 4 years ago.

And was there any intelligence pointing to an attack back then?

No there wasn't.

So for what reason should the public remain in a state of alertness and fear?

You are still not grasping this are you, where again you have no idea on intelligence and again on how it is calculated, you are thus making assumptions based only on what you know you read about in the media.


There have been plenty of incidents also, but again the threat levels are calculated on may factors, of which you are not privy to or even understand it seems

I see, so now you are an intelligence expert. Go on then, please explain to us how the risk is calculated and the terror threat level is determined?

And who said anything about the media. I got my information from the MI5 and Home office directly.

Look at the MI5 site - they clearly state they have no intelligence. It is you who are making assumptions.

I await your explanation of how intelligence and risk assessments work.

You got your information directly from mi5 and the Home Office? Who are you, James fucking Bond?

nicko wrote:You got your information directly from mi5 and the Home Office?      Who are you, James fucking Bond?

007 to you.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


You are still not grasping this are you, where again you have no idea on intelligence and again on how it is calculated, you are thus making assumptions based only on what you know you read about in the media.


There have been plenty of incidents also, but again the threat levels are calculated on may factors, of which you are not privy to or even understand it seems

I see, so now you are an intelligence expert. Go on then, please explain to us how the risk is calculated and the terror threat level is determined?

And who said anything about the media. I got my information from the MI5 and Home office directly.

Look at the MI5 site - they clearly state they have no intelligence. It is you who are making assumptions.

I await your explanation of how intelligence and risk assessments work.

I never claimed to be an intelligence expert and as seen there has been events where people have been arrested and where the level has stayed the same over the last few years, where terrorist attempts have been thwarted. This may give you a clue here as to why, a level would be raised to severe now though but not critical as it once was in the last decade. Again you are basing this wrongly on the fact there is no imminent attack, that is not the only reason how the risk level is calculated. The level in Northern Ireland also is severe and has stayed severe for for quite a few years now, but again there is no imminent attack there either. There is however an increased chance that one will happen.

I am making no assumptions, if you looked on there website you would not they use many factor for calculating risk

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I see, so now you are an intelligence expert. Go on then, please explain to us how the risk is calculated and the terror threat level is determined?

And who said anything about the media. I got my information from the MI5 and Home office directly.

Look at the MI5 site - they clearly state they have no intelligence. It is you who are making assumptions.

I await your explanation of how intelligence and risk assessments work.

I never claimed to be an intelligence expert and as seen there has been events where people have been arrested and where the level has stayed the same over the last few years, where terrorist attempts have been thwarted. This may give you a clue here as to why, a level would be raised to severe now though but not critical as it once was in the last decade. Again you are basing this wrongly on the fact there is no imminent attack, that is not the only reason how the risk level is calculated. The level in Northern Ireland also is severe and has stayed severe for for quite a few years now, but again there is no imminent attack there either. There is however an increased chance that one will happen.

I am making no assumptions, if you looked on there website you would not they use many factor for calculating risk

I did look at their site.

In reaching a judgement on the appropriate threat level in any given circumstance several factors need to be taken into account.

These include:

Available intelligence: It is rare that specific threat information is available and can be relied upon. More often, judgements about the threat will be based on a wide range of information, which is often fragmentary, including the level and nature of current terrorist activity, comparison with events in other countries and previous attacks. Intelligence is only ever likely to reveal part of the picture.

Terrorist capability: An examination of what is known about the capabilities of the terrorists in question and the method they may use based on previous attacks or from intelligence. This would also analyse the potential scale of the attack

Terrorist intentions: Using intelligence and publicly available information to examine the overall aims of the terrorists and the ways they may achieve them including what sort of targets they would consider attacking.

Timescale: The threat level expresses the likelihood of an attack in the near term. We know from past incidents that some attacks take years to plan, while others are put together more quickly. In the absence of specific intelligence, a judgement will need to be made about how close an attack might be to fruition. Threat levels do not have any set expiry date, but are regularly subject to review in order to ensure that they remain current.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels/the-uks-threat-level-system/how-do-we-decide-threat-levels.html

None of which indicates why the threat level should be raised to severe, except to raise the alertness amongst the public. Which is nothing but fear stocking.

The point is: the wording (such as highly likely) behind this specify threat level is only designed for this purpose.

Linguistics play a key part in this sort of mind control. It's candy crush saga tactics.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:



I never claimed to be an intelligence expert and as seen there has been events where people have been arrested and where the level has stayed the same over the last few years, where terrorist attempts have been thwarted. This may give you a clue here as to why, a level would be raised to severe now though but not critical as it once was in the last decade. Again you are basing this wrongly on the fact there is no imminent attack, that is not the only reason how the risk level is calculated. The level in Northern Ireland also is severe and has stayed severe for for quite a few years now, but again there is no imminent attack there either. There is however an increased chance that one will happen.

I am making no assumptions, if you looked on there website you would not they use many factor for calculating risk

I did look at their site.

In reaching a judgement on the appropriate threat level in any given circumstance several factors need to be taken into account.

These include:

Available intelligence: It is rare that specific threat information is available and can be relied upon. More often, judgements about the threat will be based on a wide range of information, which is often fragmentary, including the level and nature of current terrorist activity, comparison with events in other countries and previous attacks. Intelligence is only ever likely to reveal part of the picture.

Terrorist capability: An examination of what is known about the capabilities of the terrorists in question and the method they may use based on previous attacks or from intelligence. This would also analyse the potential scale of the attack

Terrorist intentions: Using intelligence and publicly available information to examine the overall aims of the terrorists and the ways they may achieve them including what sort of targets they would consider attacking.

Timescale: The threat level expresses the likelihood of an attack in the near term. We know from past incidents that some attacks take years to plan, while others are put together more quickly. In the absence of specific intelligence, a judgement will need to be made about how close an attack might be to fruition. Threat levels do not have any set expiry date, but are regularly subject to review in order to ensure that they remain current.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels/the-uks-threat-level-system/how-do-we-decide-threat-levels.html

None of which indicates why the threat level should be raised to severe, except to raise the alertness amongst the public. Which is nothing but fear stocking.

The point is: the wording (such as highly likely) behind this specify threat level is only designed for this purpose.

Linguistics play a key part in this sort of mind control. It's candy crush saga tactics.

Again you still do not grasp how it is calculated, that is just some of the means looked at when calculating the risk, seriously Zack, risk analysis is part of my job, this is what you are failing to grasp here, so it has nothing to do with Governments trying to hype but how MI5 like most companies have a risk calculator, which has a methodology based around many factors.
Again as stated Northern Ireland is at Severe and has been for a few years ow, are you saying that is just hype an trying to scare people?
So again you are misguided mainly because you do not understand how to calculate risk.

Didge wrote:lol are you the grammar Police now Quill?

Do me a favour you have failed to respond to my points countless times and you are naive to think you can handle it was it will create w massive problem for the Muslim community who already live there.


I know plenty about the special forces, no doubt more than you and we have elements of extremist Muslims in both our countries, thus it is no good to ignore the problem.

Again simple points, take out ISIS

Second, work on the aspects of people who are being drawn to extremists groups, where at preset the extremist propaganda has been allowed to thrive. They are looking for meaning to their lives.

Seriously your view is one that hopes the problem will go away and even worse neglect the economic problems that could escalate. Your view they will seek for peace, would only happen if they are under threat of being destroyed, because as seen other extremist Islamic groups are not and are continuing to commit atrocities.

Its a good thing we did not take your stance with Poland in 1939 ad hope Hitler would just sue for peace, he played that card which was easily bought and then 6 years later 60 million people are left dead. He was allowed to grow and rearm for years because of your approach. I fact there has been plenty of leaders where inaction has led to many dying, Idi Ami, Pol Pot, Jean Bedel Bokassa, the list is endless and in each scenario only after many had died was action taken, all allowed to grow, even though the warning signs were there.

Totally responded to your points, Didge. Stay out. It's not our fight.

Nuff said.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:lol are you the grammar Police now Quill?

Do me a favour you have failed to respond to my points countless times and you are naive to think you can handle it was it will create w massive problem for the Muslim community who already live there.


I know plenty about the special forces, no doubt more than you and we have elements of extremist Muslims in both our countries, thus it is no good to ignore the problem.

Again simple points, take out ISIS

Second, work on the aspects of people who are being drawn to extremists groups, where at preset the extremist propaganda has been allowed to thrive. They are looking for meaning to their lives.

Seriously your view is one that hopes the problem will go away and even worse neglect the economic problems that could escalate. Your view they will seek for peace, would only happen if they are under threat of being destroyed, because as seen other extremist Islamic groups are not and are continuing to commit atrocities.

Its a good thing we did not take your stance with Poland in 1939 ad hope Hitler would just sue for peace, he played that card which was easily bought and then 6 years later 60 million people are left dead. He was allowed to grow and rearm for years because of your approach. I fact there has been plenty of leaders where inaction has led to many dying, Idi Ami, Pol Pot, Jean Bedel Bokassa, the list is endless and in each scenario only after many had died was action taken, all allowed to grow, even though the warning signs were there.

Totally responded to your points, Didge.  Stay out.  It's not our fight.

Nuff said.

Hello Quill

I know you did, which is odd you are going back to older posts, when more was made yesterday
It is our problem when there is British citizens fighting for them or even some British Muslim women searching online to marry some of them and the fact you fail again to see the long term problem if they obtain their goals, especially if they take Mecca.

Hey ho, we are not going to agree on this and I guess time will only tell as to what will happen

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

How, by getting them all to sing Kumbya?

Didge, you don't have the power to stop the genocide.  You have only the power to add to it.

Remembers, peacekeepers carry guns?

Again complete babble, we stop genocide by taking out those committing it, maybe you want to sing hymns around the campfire, but that is not going to help those in immediate danger, let alone those displaced and starving. Again you fail to see the bigger picture or the long term outcomes if IS are successful and what affects it will have on the world, even more so if they gain Mecca.

You have completely lost the message, Didge.  Allow me to clarigy:

1.  Take out genocide with guns?  You sound like the NRA, if I may make an analogy--if the "good guys' have guns, only the "bad guys" will be killed.  That's the NRA reasoning for peace in America.  More guns everywhere means more...what justice?  And it's your reasoning for peace in the Middle East.

The fallacy of that argument is that with more guns, everybody starts shooting at everybody else.  We once shot beside the Taliban; now we shoot at them.  Same with al Queda.  Soon we'll be friends with Hesbollah or Hamas, and we'll be shooting at the US??  It's absurd what is going on there, and you want to add to it??

2.  The only people singing hymns are those who think they will 'convert' Muslims to the better path.

3.  The bigger picture is that you have a war on your hands, and you think that by escalating the war you can stop it.  You need a quick course in Mediation and Peacemaking.  When you have gotta do it with arms, you are going the wrong way.  You are not out to make peace.

Why not be a good conservative and admit you don't give a shit about genocide, mothers or babies.  You just want to shoot off guns and flex a little muscle.  Where do you think the phrase, 'Show us your guns' come from?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Totally responded to your points, Didge.  Stay out.  It's not our fight.

Nuff said.

Hello Quill

I know you did, which is odd you are going back to older posts, when more was made yesterday
It is our problem when there is British citizens fighting for them or even some British Muslim women searching online to marry some of them and the fact you fail again to see the long term problem if they obtain their goals, especially if they take Mecca.

Hey ho, we are not going to agree on this and I guess time will only tell as to what will happen

Hey Didge...

It's always been the same message: Get out and stay out. It's not our war.

I've not lost any message Quill, with again you are failing to see the bigger log term picture, yours is a short term view, which as we have gone around in circles over this already it is becoming redundent stating the same things.
.
Islamic extremist are and have been at war with the west for sometime, even before the first Iraq war, which is why you fail to take into account the history aspect also, which is why you fail to see the bigger picture here.

I will ignore this comment as it is both emotive and utterly ignorant to claim on your part:

Why not be a good conservative and admit you don't give a shit about genocide, mothers or babies. You just want to shoot off guns and flex a little muscle. Where do you think the phrase, 'Show us your guns' come from?


It also shows you are clueless on military tactics and why some of you yanks have never learnt from how the British were successful in their conflicts is Asia and the Middle East in the 20th century after WW2, where as America failed miserably.


I will allow you to detract that daft claim

Didge wrote:I've not lost any message Quill, with again you are failing to see the bigger log term picture, yours is a short term view, which as we have gone around in circles over this already it is becoming redundent stating the same things.
.
Islamic extremist are and have been at war with the west for sometime, even before the first Iraq war, which is why you fail to take into account the history aspect also, which is why you fail to see the bigger picture here.

They are not at war with the west.  They want to involve the west in their own squabbles.  Even 9/11 was not an act of war, but a plea for help.

Muslims have learned from the '67 war that they are at least a century behind when it comes to war and modern technology.  They look over at the west and say, Yeah...now that's what I'm talking about!

Even the King of Saudi Arabia implores the west to involve itself, by employing scare tactics.  
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/930602-europe-and-us-on-isis-hit-list-saudi-king-says-us-lawmakers-concur/?sidebar=morein  But like all the others, he just wants to hold our coat while we go to war for them.

Sometimes, amid all of this so-called sophisticated geopolitical diplomacy and tactical battle plans, the common, everyday parent in us sees what is happening:

Mommy, daddy...Nathan hit me and he won't give back my dolly.

A good parent sends them to their rooms to work it out for themselves.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I've not lost any message Quill, with again you are failing to see the bigger log term picture, yours is a short term view, which as we have gone around in circles over this already it is becoming redundent stating the same things.
.
Islamic extremist are and have been at war with the west for sometime, even before the first Iraq war, which is why you fail to take into account the history aspect also, which is why you fail to see the bigger picture here.

They are not at war with the west.  They want to involve the west in their own squabbles.  Even 9/11 was not an act of war, but a plea for help.

Muslims have learned fromn the '67 war that they are at least a century behind when it comes to war and modern technology.  They look over at the west and say, Yeah...now that's what I'm talking about!

Even the King of Saudi Arabia implores the west to involve itself, by employing scare tactics.  
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/930602-europe-and-us-on-isis-hit-list-saudi-king-says-us-lawmakers-concur/?sidebar=morein  But like all the others, he just wants to hold our coat while we go to war for them.

Sometimes, amid all of this so-called sophisticated geopolitical diplomacy and tactical battle plans, the common, everyday parent in us sees what is happening:

Mommy, daddy...Nathan hit me and he won't give back my dolly.

A good parent sends them to their rooms to work it out for themselves.

Are you having a fucking laugh, a plea for help, sorry you are losing the plot Quill, I know you propose some eccentric ideas on history but this one tops the bill.
As to war, the British learnt originally twice in the 19th century a harsh lesson in Afghanistan with superior technology, showing that has got bugger all to do with it, even more so when they beat the Russiams also only a few decades back. Where again the British SAS after its successful ending of the Iranian siege, was the best and most productive export to the Middle east with so many requests for their help and expert military abilities. So totally disagree with your absurd view point here. The Brits have always show the right way to do things, where as America, cannot control its troops or uses any viable policies whilst it is a nation to help.

No...you and the world have made so much about 9/11 and 7/7, that you no longer can deviate from the script.

Frankly, I think they were both attention-getters, not actual battlefield tactics.

Get off the bullsheit British pomposity. I'm not nearly as impressed by the whole SAS, as I am by one clear thought. The clear thought I am currently talking about is...WFT...ten years of war, and $17-trillion, and you still haven't learned??

Original Quill wrote:No...you and the world have made so much about 9/11 and 7/7, that you no longer can deviate from the script.

Frankly, I think they were both attention-getters, not actual battlefield tactics.

Get off the bullsheit British pomposity.  I'm not nearly as impressed by the whole SAS, as I am by one clear thought.  The clear thought I am currently talking about is...WFT...ten years of war, and $17-trillion, and you still haven't learned??

Sorry history is not on your side and the SAS has years of glorious success, leaving any such yank unit so far behind in comparison, so I will not get off it, because the Yanks have much to learn about in conflicts from the Brits.
9/11 was not a plea, it was an act of war from a group, who saw themselves at war with the west, that until their demands were met, this war would continue.

I am sorry Quill,but the average yank soldier is not a patch on a well trained Brit.Ihad first hand knowledge of the American soldier in Vietnam, [I fought with the Aussie First Regiment]for two tours. The American soldier went into Vietnam all gung-ho with the idea that they were the " best". From what I saw they had little or no idea how to fight in jungle,a lot of them were out of their heads on "pot"they wasted ammunition like it was going out of fashion and called in air power when a determind attack would have won the ground. Saying that, there were yanks who were incredibly brave, but many officers were hopeless and caused the deaths of many "grunts"

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I did look at their site.

In reaching a judgement on the appropriate threat level in any given circumstance several factors need to be taken into account.

These include:

Available intelligence: It is rare that specific threat information is available and can be relied upon. More often, judgements about the threat will be based on a wide range of information, which is often fragmentary, including the level and nature of current terrorist activity, comparison with events in other countries and previous attacks. Intelligence is only ever likely to reveal part of the picture.

Terrorist capability: An examination of what is known about the capabilities of the terrorists in question and the method they may use based on previous attacks or from intelligence. This would also analyse the potential scale of the attack

Terrorist intentions: Using intelligence and publicly available information to examine the overall aims of the terrorists and the ways they may achieve them including what sort of targets they would consider attacking.

Timescale: The threat level expresses the likelihood of an attack in the near term. We know from past incidents that some attacks take years to plan, while others are put together more quickly. In the absence of specific intelligence, a judgement will need to be made about how close an attack might be to fruition. Threat levels do not have any set expiry date, but are regularly subject to review in order to ensure that they remain current.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels/the-uks-threat-level-system/how-do-we-decide-threat-levels.html

None of which indicates why the threat level should be raised to severe, except to raise the alertness amongst the public. Which is nothing but fear stocking.

The point is: the wording (such as highly likely) behind this specify threat level is only designed for this purpose.

Linguistics play a key part in this sort of mind control. It's candy crush saga tactics.

Again you still do not grasp how it is calculated, that is just some of the means looked at when calculating the risk, seriously Zack, risk analysis is part of my job, this is what you are failing to grasp here, so it has nothing to do with Governments trying to hype but how MI5 like most companies have a risk calculator, which has a methodology based around many factors.
Again as stated Northern Ireland is at Severe and has been for a few years ow, are you saying that is just hype an trying to scare people?
So again you are misguided mainly because you do not understand how to calculate risk.

Now who's speculating. If you're not, then feel free to explain the methodology of their risk analysis?

Well quill I got to say your are really coming the left winger, and at times the archetypical "slack jawed" left winger at that...

example

when I was a school the bully generally ended up being taken behind the tennis courts and having "bullying" explained to him by a bunch of prefects..this generally resulted in the bully giving up the idea of bullying as a career, and hence bullying was nowhere near as rife OR severe as it is today...
then the tit heads of the left got a grip on education over here and stopped such effective measures, they explained that the poor bully was a victim too, and even to the point of blaming the bullys victim for being a victim. councelling they said...thats whats needed, not punishment...and so now you have the bottomless morass of bulling that infests all or schools and is responsible for much harm.
And of course a bottomless pit of cash for the lefts "pals" in councelling services.

same with a lot of "anti social" crime over here....at one time THAT got you belted by your dad, or even sent to an "apporoved school"  ...where you would be "belted" into line..

the philosophy was simple....you did it wrong ...you got walloped...walloping hurts....so even the thickest thug soon learned...if I do "X" it hurts....so I wont do it....very effective is aversion therapy

the same attitudes of "leftism" is what emboldens these cretins in IS . The west needs to give them the military equivalent of a damn good thrashing, and teach them that such deeds as they are doing result in a whole world of pain for them.

victorisnotamused wrote:Well quill I got to say your are really coming the left winger, and at times the archetypical "slack jawed" left winger at that...

example

when I was a school the bully generally ended up being taken behind the tennis courts and having "bullying" explained to him by a bunch of prefects..this generally resulted in the bully giving up the idea of bullying as a career, and hence bullying was nowhere near as rife OR severe as it is today...
then the tit heads of the left got a grip on education over here and stopped such effective measures, they explained that the poor bully was a victim too, and even to the point of blaming the bullys victim for being a victim. councelling they said...thats whats needed, not punishment...and so now you have the bottomless morass of bulling that infests all or schools and is responsible for much harm.
And of course a bottomless pit of cash for the lefts "pals" in councelling services.

same with a lot of "anti social" crime over here....at one time THAT got you belted by your dad, or even sent to an "apporoved school"  ...where you would be "belted" into line..

the philosophy was simple....you did it wrong ...you got walloped...walloping hurts....so even the thickest thug soon learned...if I do "X" it hurts....so I wont do it....very effective is aversion therapy

the same attitudes of "leftism" is what emboldens these cretins in IS . The west needs to give them the military equivalent of a damn good thrashing, and teach them that such deeds as they are doing result in a whole world of pain for them.

that's is crap victor

there is LESS bullying in reality and far less Violence today then their was in EVERY DECADE before this one that's is the Facts, the whole Bullying thing in the media today is largely a media beat up and the result of Everything being called bullying. But REAL Bullying (particularly Physical) Is a fraction of what it was in the past.

nicko wrote:I am sorry Quill,but the average yank soldier is not a patch on a well trained Brit.Ihad first hand knowledge of the American soldier in Vietnam, [I fought with the Aussie First Regiment]for two tours. The American soldier went into Vietnam all gung-ho with the idea that they were the " best".  From what I saw they had little or no idea how to fight in jungle,a lot of them were out of their heads on "pot"they wasted ammunition like it was going out of fashion and called in air power when a determind attack would have won the ground. Saying that, there were yanks who were incredibly brave, but many officers were hopeless and caused the deaths of many "grunts"

Probably shouldn't judge today's American soldiers by the Vietnam War -- in which about a quarter were drafted and the average age of a GI was 19.

victorisnotamused wrote:Well quill I got to say your are really coming the left winger, and at times the archetypical "slack jawed" left winger at that...

example

when I was a school the bully generally ended up being taken behind the tennis courts and having "bullying" explained to him by a bunch of prefects..this generally resulted in the bully giving up the idea of bullying as a career, and hence bullying was nowhere near as rife OR severe as it is today...
then the tit heads of the left got a grip on education over here and stopped such effective measures, they explained that the poor bully was a victim too, and even to the point of blaming the bullys victim for being a victim. councelling they said...thats whats needed, not punishment...and so now you have the bottomless morass of bulling that infests all or schools and is responsible for much harm.
And of course a bottomless pit of cash for the lefts "pals" in councelling services.

same with a lot of "anti social" crime over here....at one time THAT got you belted by your dad, or even sent to an "apporoved school"  ...where you would be "belted" into line..

the philosophy was simple....you did it wrong ...you got walloped...walloping hurts....so even the thickest thug soon learned...if I do "X" it hurts....so I wont do it....very effective is aversion therapy

the same attitudes of "leftism" is what emboldens these cretins in IS . The west needs to give them the military equivalent of a damn good thrashing, and teach them that such deeds as they are doing result in a whole world of pain for them.

They are the rightists, Vic.  Who but the right always wants to settle things by violence?  Who but the right wants to shove people around?  Who but the right sees any situation thru the lenses of conflict?  ISIL is just another intolerant, uncompromising, absolutist gang of fanatics.  They are anti-Christian, anti-women, anit-semetic neanderthals.  Sounds like the Neo-Cons that backed GWB and Cheney, to me.  They got us into this Iraq/Afghanistan mess in the first place.

Now we have to use our brains to get us out of it.  One of the best ways to frustrate them is to do the opposite of what they want...reverse child psychology.  Both sides of the Islamic world want us, the west, to come in and settle it for them.  Muslims today are like children; if they were adults, they would act like men and earn their respect, instead of all this adolescent exhibitionism.  Wanna know the best way to force a kid to grow up?  Put him out the door and on his own.  Let him know he has no options.  He's on his own, and daddy's not going to bail him out this time.  It's called TOUGH LOVE...a program designed by Synanon, the program for drug abusers.

If we go in and fight their battles for them, they will never learn.  You guys don't even realize the game they are playing on you.  You think in two-dimensions: they want to fight; we go kick ass.  This isn't about us and them.  It's about getting Israel to stop hurting them. It's about Sunnis and Shi'ites and their civil war.  It's about getting us to do their bidding for them in everything that has come up in this party.  They are not seeking a fight with us; they are seeking leverage through us.

Again that is naive Quill and agree 100% with Victors point. Until the day comes that there is no aggressors with war, you have to counter violence with violence as have never seen an invading army stopped by countering them by shooting flowers at them. To counter a threat of violence you have to use violence, that is war, which will escalate to higher levels dependent on what violence is attempted against you, in other words reasonable force. To make views this is about anti views towards groups is again misguided, where today there is a massive growing problem with no respect giving to authorities, from the Police to parents, all formed from left wig pandering.

Today many lack any forms of discipline and where you may well discipline a child without smacking with success, when they reach a certain age of maturity into their teens, where they are problematic having used a soft approach many families face difficulties. To take on a bully, you counter what they do by a simple lesson of force, which takes away their view of empowerment, because that is what it boils down to, them feeling empowered over others, where if this is taken away, they lose their empowerment and in many cases learn from this. You see your approach of which has happened for many years now is why we have problems. Nobody is talking about using necessary or successive force, but what is required to help teach someone what is right and wrong. Of course this will not work with everyone but with the vast majority it does..

At present Isis feel empowered, because little is being done to stop them and like any bully left unchecked and without control, there is every likelihood they will turn to more criminal activities. The problem here is not that Isis are not a threat at the moment, but what they might become if they are successful ad gain a large empire throughout the Middle East, as it would basically place the world economy into turmoil, where many peoples lives are dependent on a successful world economy. So even without a direct threat, there certainly is a threat to the stability of the economies in every country around the globe, but also the fact these extremists will not just stop at gaining control of most of the Middle East, aggressors never do and then when instead of taking them out in a small inexpensive conflict, you now face a longer conflict likely to bankrupt or make them seriously in debt defeating them. Hence why you fail to see the long term picture

Didge wrote:Again that is naive Quill and agree 100% with Victors point. Until the day comes that there is no aggressors with war, you have to counter violence with violence as have never seen an invading army stopped by countering them by shooting flowers at them.

Who’s invading whom, Didge?  They are over in the Middle East, last I checked.  They make claim to title to parts of Syria (The Levant) and Iraq and perhaps Jordan, but they are not invading you.  This is a part of your Orwellian double-speak, where “peace” keepers carry guns, and the Department of War becomes the Department of Defense.  Remember 1984.  Believe it, it is happening.

Didge wrote:To counter a threat of violence you have to use violence, that is war, which will escalate to higher levels dependent on what violence is attempted against you, in other words reasonable force. To make views this is about anti views towards groups is again misguided, where today there is a massive growing problem with no respect giving to authorities, from the Police to parents, all formed from left wig pandering.

You say “…that is war,” but again you are invoking a tautology.  It isn’t war unless you start it.  My whole point is, don’t start a war and you won’t have a war.

Didge wrote:Today many lack any forms of discipline and where you may well discipline a child without smacking with success, when they reach a certain age of maturity into their teens, where they are problematic having used a soft approach many families face difficulties. To take on a bully, you counter what they do by a simple lesson of force, which takes away their view of empowerment, because that is what it boils down to, them feeling empowered over others, where if this is taken away, they lose their empowerment and in many cases learn from this. You see your approach of which has happened for many years now is why we have problems. Nobody is talking about using necessary or successive force, but what is required to help teach someone what is right and wrong. Of course this will not work with everyone but with the vast majority it does..

You are mixing in institutional definitions (...forms of discipline) to a discussion about psychology.  I don’t doubt that institutions are necessary…over here.  But we don’t need to go over there and kick-start their institutions.  That’s called “nation-building” and it was arrogantly tried by GWB, Cheney and the Neo-Cons, with the result of a lost 10-year war, $17-trillion down the drain and no nation.  That avenue has failed.

And who the hell are you to be disciplining them? Do they want to be disciplined? Are they going to be happy after you have beat the sheit out of them and "disciplined" them? Do you think you have made their lives better? Do you really care? Or, do you just want to beat the sheit out of somebody?

If you really want to engage in a discussion about psychology, why not look for a way to achieve real and lasting peace in the Middle East.  If that is what you want, your final goal should be to make them happy with the peace plan so that they will subscribe to it, and not want to just tear it up again.  If you go in there with guns a-blazing, the whole thing becomes confused with whose got bigger balls, who can piss the farther, and like Victor says, who can beat up the bully.  

Do you think you are accomplishing anything toward lasting peace?  No, you are appeasing your own ego while stockpiling hatred on the part of Muslims.  We’ve been doing this for 13-years, Didge.  If it worked, we would have accomplished something.

Didge wrote:At present Isis feel empowered, because little is being done to stop them and like any bully left unchecked and without control, there is every likelihood they will turn to more criminal activities. The problem here is not that Isis are not a threat at the moment, but what they might become if they are successful ad gain a large empire throughout the Middle East, as it would basically place the world economy into turmoil, where many peoples lives are dependent on a successful world economy. So even without a direct threat, there certainly is a threat to the stability of the economies in every country around the globe, but also the fact these extremists will not just stop at gaining control of most of the Middle East, aggressors never do and then when instead of taking them out in a small inexpensive conflict, you now face a longer conflict likely to bankrupt or make them seriously in debt defeating them. Hence why you fail to see the long term picture

What on earth is this economic argument?  Are you talking about oil?  The US is self-sufficient, so count us out on that one.  The Scots just found huge new oil fields in Scotland’s North Sea, so probably Europe is all right.  And if the Middle East wants stability, then maybe the Saudis and Jordanians can start meeting their responsibilities to build a decent military, instead of buying more Lamborghinis.

In any event, you aren’t going to purchase peace with more war.  We’ve had 10-years of war, lost $17-trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives…and nothing…zippo…nada.  That avenue has failed.

If conservatives want a war so bad, they should go buy some tin soldiers.

Jesus this is pointless trying to reason with a lefty when it comes to psychology or over it seems getting them to understand where violence is countered by violence.
Peace will not come to the Middle East whilst there is growing extremism, which was ad has been exported through Wahhabism, which until you understand this, you have no comprehension of what you are even talking about Quill
There are some people and groups in the world who do not respond to dialogue or reasoning, which is why you fail to understand physiology, or why the left wing view in the main fails, whilst you still have violent people or groups in the world..
Untill there is no people wanting to commit violence in the world you have to counter violence with violence, that is war and how wars are won and how peace is brought about. It is not done by ignoring a problem.

As to economic, how may Arabs have vested money and interested and companies throughout the world. which without would create countless unemployment?

Take your time on that, which is why you are clueless on this, if Saudi is over taken, they have a hold over countless Muslims, why you fail to understand many things here.

This is not about war, there are those seeking war, because they have aims, that is Isis, just like Hitler did, just like the Japanese did, and because the yanks were so clueless to not intervene earlier, which if they had done so and stopped both of them by actually getting involved millions of people would have not have unnecessarily died, through genocide, something it seems your are utterly clueless on.

The reality is America's late intervention allowed millions to die, that is your policy, which you fail to comprehend or even understand, so you live with those consequences, because if they intervened earlier, would either japan or Germany have gone to war?

No

The answer to that is No and then if they had gone in to stop both, millions less would have died, all of which you fail to comprehend and we purchased peace in Europe for years because we went to war, something again, you fail to grasp.

By the way Quill and we are buddies, there is no counter to the point of late intervention of the US, it is a check mate move mate.

Didge wrote:Jesus this is pointless trying to reason with a lefty when it comes to psychology or over it seems getting them to understand where violence is countered by violence.
Peace will not come to the Middle East whilst there is growing extremism, which was ad has been exported through Wahhabism, which until you understand this, you have no comprehension of what you are even talking about Quill

Wahhabism is just another faction, Didge. There have been so many of them; there will be so many more. And you want to take on every single one of them…each in their turn. Well, I admire your energy. But not your foresight.

Didge wrote:There are some people and groups in the world who do not respond to dialogue or reasoning, which is why you fail to understand physiology, or why the left wing view in the main fails, whilst you still have violet people or groups in the world..

And so you think you’ve got the answer? I remind you we spent the last 13-years, and $17-trillion of US money (who much for you guys?), and hundreds of thousands of lives, and got nothing.

You just want war, Didge. Good ol’ right wing war. Righties bathe in it. It feels so good on their skin. They love it. (Lol…I digress)

You can take on faction after faction, and you will still be standing in the same place. You will have won nothing…stopped nothing…accomplished nothing.

Didge wrote:As to economic, how may Arabs have vested money and interested an companies throughout the world?

take your time o that, which is why you are clueless on this, if Saudi is over taken, they have a hold over countless Muslims, why you fail to understand many things here.

This is not about war, there are those seeking war, because they have aims, just like Hitler did, just like the Japanese did, and because the yaks were so clueless to not intervene earlier, which if they had did and stopped both of them by actually getting involved millions of people would have not necessarily died, through genocide, something it seems your are utterly clueless on.

The reality is Americas late intervention allowed millions to die, that is your policy, which you fail to comprehend or even understand, so you live with those consequences, because if they intervened earlier, would either japan or Germany have gone to war?

The answer to that is No and then if they had gone in to stop both, millions less would have died, all of which you fail to comprehend

The answer to Saudi impotence, and the threat to Israel because this faction wants the whole Levant, is…let them handle it. If this is about Saudi Arabia, or any of the remaining established nations in the Middle East, let them handle it. Saudi Arabia and Jordan should build up their own armed forces, instead of begging for ours.

If this is about Israel, they don’t need our help.

Didge wrote:By the way Quill and we are buddies, there is no counter to the point of late intervention of the US, it is a check mate move mate.

America is a democracy.  Sometimes there is no accounting for democracies.  Look at Gaza.

The wrong elements had driven the Neutrality Act through Congress in the 1930's.  So it goes.  Roosevelt did all he could to get into Europe's war, including looking aside at the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Haha...it took a little while, but we got there.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:By the way Quill and we are buddies, there is no counter to the point of late intervention of the US, it is a check mate move mate.

America is a democracy.  Sometimes there is no accounting for democracies.  Look at Gaza.

The wrong elements had driven the Neutrality Act through Congress in the 1930's.  So it goes.  Roosevelt did all he could to get into Europe's war, including looking aside at the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Haha...it took a little while, but we got there.

Again incorrect, no country is a real democracy, if it was, every policy would be voted upon by the people.
Again you have no answer to this point, his inaction, where if they intervened, would have saved millions, that is a fact Quill, sorry bud, and you know it too.
He did everything to avoid war, where I proved this to you, showing the view that he did , was a complete myth.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Jesus this is pointless trying to reason with a lefty when it comes to psychology or over it seems getting them to understand where violence is countered by violence.
Peace will not come to the Middle East whilst there is growing extremism, which was ad has been exported through Wahhabism, which until you understand this, you have no comprehension of what you are even talking about Quill

Wahhabism is just another faction, Didge.  There have been so many of them; there will be so many more.  And you want to take on every single one of them…each in their turn.  Well, I admire your energy.  But not your foresight.

Didge wrote:There are some people and groups in the world who do not respond to dialogue or reasoning, which is why you fail to understand physiology, or why the left wing view in the main fails, whilst you still have violet people or groups in the world..

And so you think you’ve got the answer?  I remind you we spent the last 13-years, and $17-trillion of US money (who much for you guys?), and hundreds of thousands of lives, and got nothing.

You just want war, Didge.  Good ol’ right wing war.  Righties bathe in it.  It feels so good on their skin.  They love it.  (Lol…I digress)

You can take on faction after faction, and you will still be standing in the same place.  You will have won nothing…stopped nothing…accomplished nothing.

Didge wrote:As to economic, how may Arabs have vested money and interested an companies throughout the world?

take your time o that, which is why you are clueless on this, if Saudi is over taken, they have a hold over countless Muslims, why you fail to understand many things here.

This is not about war, there are those seeking war, because they have aims, just like Hitler did, just like the Japanese did, and because the yaks were so clueless to not intervene earlier, which if they had did and stopped both of them by actually getting involved millions of people would have not necessarily died, through genocide, something it seems your are utterly clueless on.

The reality is Americas late intervention allowed millions to die, that is your policy, which you fail to comprehend or even understand, so you live with those consequences, because if they intervened earlier, would either japan or Germany have gone to war?




The answer to that is No and then if they had gone in to stop both, millions less would have died, all of which you fail to comprehend

The answer to Saudi impotence, and the threat to Israel because this faction wants the whole Levant, is…let them handle it.  If this is about Saudi Arabia, or any of the remaining established nations in the Middle East, let them handle it.  Saudi Arabia and Jordan should build up their own armed forces, instead of begging for ours.

If this is about Israel, they don’t need our help.

Nobody wants war Quill, but aggression and violence has to be countered by war, if you sit back idol, then many people die unnecessarily, which is why inaction has led i so many cases to where genocide has happened.

The fact you use emotive arguments, to claim I want war, I know I am winning the argument here, because war is the last thing anyone wants, but war is necessary to stop those who have aims of aggression and are committed to genocide, some things take precedent when this happens, which means, others who have the right morals, will place themselves into this situation to stop many innocent lives being lost.
This is not just a nation that has some human rights violations, but is committing mass genocide.

This is nothing about Israel either, if it was, they would take my approach.

Saudi is a theocratic nightmare, which I wish to be liberated from such extremism which is taught daily, but not to be over run by a force, of which Wahhbism is very much responsible for creating that will make their rule seem like childs play compared to what they will do if they gain control


Your only defense to this debate is the failed conflict in the second Iraq war, which none here agree was right, we all agree is wrong, that though leaves you with little ammunition to counter my points quill, as seen, where such inaction happens, countless innocents die.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

America is a democracy.  Sometimes there is no accounting for democracies.  Look at Gaza.

The wrong elements had driven the Neutrality Act through Congress in the 1930's.  So it goes.  Roosevelt did all he could to get into Europe's war, including looking aside at the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Haha...it took a little while, but we got there.

Again incorrect, no country is a real democracy, if it was, every policy would be voted upon by the people.
Again you have no answer to this point, his inaction, where if they intervened, would have saved millions, that is a fact Quill, sorry bud, and you know it too.
He did everything to avoid war, where I proved this to you, showing the view that he did , was a complete myth.

Reality is the best answer I have. Roosevelt struggled mightily to get the US in Europe's war. But he was up against a huge neutrality faction.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again incorrect, no country is a real democracy, if it was, every policy would be voted upon by the people.
Again you have no answer to this point, his inaction, where if they intervened, would have saved millions, that is a fact Quill, sorry bud, and you know it too.
He did everything to avoid war, where I proved this to you, showing the view that he did , was a complete myth.

Reality is the best answer I have.  Roosevelt struggled mightily to get the US in Europe's war.  But he was up against a huge neutrality faction.

That is utter bullshit, and you know it is Quill, he avoided it at all costs, as seen by the proof before I have given you

Having said all I have, I love our debates Quill as i do look forward to them, as I do with Victor, they are always interesting and at times heated,but would be boring without.

Cheers buddy, and you know I hold you in high respect, but am going to disagree with you at times..

Take care

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I see, so now you are an intelligence expert. Go on then, please explain to us how the risk is calculated and the terror threat level is determined?

And who said anything about the media. I got my information from the MI5 and Home office directly.

Look at the MI5 site - they clearly state they have no intelligence. It is you who are making assumptions.

I await your explanation of how intelligence and risk assessments work.

I never claimed to be an intelligence expert and as seen there has been events where people have been arrested and where the level has stayed the same over the last few years, where terrorist attempts have been thwarted. This may give you a clue here as to why, a level would be raised to severe now though but not critical as it once was in the last decade. Again you are basing this wrongly on the fact there is no imminent attack, that is not the only reason how the risk level is calculated. The level in Northern Ireland also is severe and has stayed severe for for quite a few years now, but again there is no imminent attack there either. There is however an increased chance that one will happen.

I am making no assumptions, if you looked on there website you would not they use many factor for calculating risk

I did look at their site.

In reaching a judgement on the appropriate threat level in any given circumstance several factors need to be taken into account.

These include:

Available intelligence: It is rare that specific threat information is available and can be relied upon. More often, judgements about the threat will be based on a wide range of information, which is often fragmentary, including the level and nature of current terrorist activity, comparison with events in other countries and previous attacks. Intelligence is only ever likely to reveal part of the picture.

Terrorist capability: An examination of what is known about the capabilities of the terrorists in question and the method they may use based on previous attacks or from intelligence. This would also analyse the potential scale of the attack

Terrorist intentions: Using intelligence and publicly available information to examine the overall aims of the terrorists and the ways they may achieve them including what sort of targets they would consider attacking.

Timescale: The threat level expresses the likelihood of an attack in the near term. We know from past incidents that some attacks take years to plan, while others are put together more quickly. In the absence of specific intelligence, a judgement will need to be made about how close an attack might be to fruition. Threat levels do not have any set expiry date, but are regularly subject to review in order to ensure that they remain current.

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/threat-levels/the-uks-threat-level-system/how-do-we-decide-threat-levels.html

None of which indicates why the threat level should be raised to severe, except to raise the alertness amongst the public. Which is nothing but fear stocking.

The point is: the wording (such as highly likely) behind this specify threat level is only designed for this purpose.

Linguistics play a key part in this sort of mind control. It's candy crush saga tactics.

It has nothing to do with manipulating the masses and causing fear, Zack, and all to do with public awareness at a time when there is so much tension around in what is happening in Iraq and Syria and the involvement of young British men as well as the fact that world leaders are here for a NATO summit so; 'including what sort of targets they would consider attacking' fits in there.

Much of the worlds media are focused on the UK at the moment and with all these world leaders, NATO chiefs and their support staff here it is an opportunity for terrorists to get maximum effect If that’s not a reason to raise the level to severe (highly likely) then I do not know what is

The 7/7 attacks took place on the 7 July and it just so happened there was a G8 summit with world leaders attending taking place at Gleneagles in Scotland between the 6-8 July.....Coincidence?

Looks like common-sense to me.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

America is a democracy.  Sometimes there is no accounting for democracies.  Look at Gaza.

The wrong elements had driven the Neutrality Act through Congress in the 1930's.  So it goes.  Roosevelt did all he could to get into Europe's war, including looking aside at the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Haha...it took a little while, but we got there.

Again incorrect, no country is a real democracy, if it was, every policy would be voted upon by the people.
Again you have no answer to this point, his inaction, where if they intervened, would have saved millions, that is a fact Quill, sorry bud, and you know it too.
He did everything to avoid war, where I proved this to you, showing the view that he did , was a complete myth.

Reality is the best answer I have.  Roosevelt struggled mightily to get the US in Europe's war.  But he was up against a huge neutrality faction.

Turns out Hitler laid it on a plate for him to officially enter Europe's war.

Just as well.........otherwise?????

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Reality is the best answer I have.  Roosevelt struggled mightily to get the US in Europe's war.  But he was up against a huge neutrality faction.

Turns out Hitler laid it on a plate for him to officially enter Europe's war.

Just as well.........otherwise?????

Exactly.  I would only add that Roosevelt and Churchill maneuvered Hitler into that move thru the Tripartite Pact.  It was a brilliant chess gambit.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Turns out Hitler laid it on a plate for him to officially enter Europe's war.

Just as well.........otherwise?????

Exactly.  I would only add that Roosevelt and Churchill maneuvered Hitler into that move thru the Tripartite Pact.  It was a brilliant chess gambit.

For goodness sake, stop telling porkies, they did both nothing to stop Hitler or entice him, where again Churchill told privately to the Czechoslovakia Government he would have done the same as Chamberlain did,
Seriously, I know you have views on WW2, but they are misguided, many people feil to understand how close Germany was very close to beating the allies.
For one, Britain was on its knees, in the Battle of Britain, if not for a German bomber going off course hitting the East end of London and Churchill using his to attack Berlin, to then have Hitler not lose face after claiming Germany would never be bombed, Britain would have lost the Battle of Britain. Because he changed tactics to attack the cities, took the pressure off the airfields, where they had time to repair them to fight back and be able to launch aircraft.

If Hitler had as many U-Boats as he did at the end of the war, at the beginning, he would have strangled Britain into submission, so bullshit claims about some fantasy you claim on them both is nothing but bull Quill

Meh...U-boats.  Within a year of America joining the war, it applied its genius for systems and eliminated the threat.  It developed new technology to deal with problem, and by Black May 1943 (for the Nazis) German U-boat sailors were begging for shore duty.

uboat.net wrote:
In May 1943 the biggest loss to befall the U-boat fleet came with loss of 41 boats. Overall losses in 1943 were 243 U-boats.  If Black May were not enough, the year 1944 was even worse than 1943, with steady losses all year bringing the total up to 249 boats when the year came to an end.

With the war coming to an end, and overwhelming allied forces all around them, Germany lost over 120 U-boats in action in the first 5 months of the year.

Japan was only in the war to create a gambit so that Roosevelt could get into the war.  When Germany, Italy and Japan entered into the Tripartite Pact in September 1940, the three promised each other that if any of them went to war, all would.  That agreement could have been worded differently, but it wasn't. Hitler thought he was scaring the US out of the war, but man was he stupid.  Roosevelt saw his chance and moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor.  This goaded the Japanese into a preemptive strike, which they carried out on Sunday, December 7, 1941.  Of course, Germany was compelled to declare war on the US on December 11, 1941.

A brilliant play, wasn't it?  Notice none of the Aircraft carriers were in port on that Sunday.  Since the Battle of Taranto in November 1940 the world was on notice that the aircraft carrier was the new capital ship of the era.  America sacrificed it's battleships at Pearl Harbor, but it's aircraft carriers were nowhere to be found.  Pity...as the Japanese were to find out six months later at the Battle of Midway (four Jap carriers sunk--ending Japanese domination of the Pacific).  From there it was just a cake-walk up the island chains until the home islands were threatened.  Then America delivered the most brilliant coup de grâce of all, saving not only American lives, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives in the bargain.  

The gnats of the Imperial Japanese Navy swatted off the map, America turned its attention to saving Britain, which was accomplished in 1945

Dear me, yet more mythical claims about Roosevelt, where again you fail to understand the significance if Germany had a much larger U-Boat force at the start of the war as they did at the end, as it would have starved Britain into submission. If you view this as America saving Britain, then that is also not only daft but absurd, as without any of the many allies, the reality is America would not have beaten Germany either, based upon logistical problems, where it would have needed Britain as a base for operations, let alone the mass of the fight was carried out on the eastern front in millions of lives lost.

You delusional claim that after midway, it was a piece of cake, is again nothing short of stupid, being as countless Americans and civilians died for example like in the Philippines. The Americans suffered untold casualties, where it again was estimated an invasion of Japan would cost a million allied casualties. Japans mistake was to attack Pearl Harbour and not go after the American fleet at sea and again at Midway, they could have easily won if they had used all their aircraft carriers, where they outnumbered the Americans at this time 2 to 1.

The Japanese only attacked not off daft and mythical claim made about Roosevelt, but because of German success and the fact it was winning at this time in Russia, with also the view, German would go to war with Japan against America. Japan had origially envisioned to go to war with the US not until 1946, and it was because of the Germans backing and of wish to also engage America, that they did, it had fuck all to do with Roosevelt, that is sheer bullshit and a complete myth. As seen he spent and exhaustible amount of time before Pearl Harbour trying to negotiate with Japan, trying to prevent war or America being dragged into one. It certainly wanted to help through economic and military aid, but not to be dragged into a conflict itself.

Sorry Quill you are consistently wrong about WW" and your misguided belief on America who because of their inaction to come to war until 1941, cost millions of lives

Quill, who rescued an "ENIGMA" machine from a sinking U boat?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is this because I farted on the London Eye?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

That really made me laugh

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is this because I farted on the London Eye?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

That really made me laugh

Welcome back Eddie.

Original Quill wrote:Meh...U-boats.  Within a year of America joining the war, it applied its genius for systems and eliminated the threat.  It developed new technology to deal with problem, and by Black May 1943 (for the Nazis) German U-boat sailors were begging for shore duty.

uboat.net wrote:
In May 1943 the biggest loss to befall the U-boat fleet came with loss of 41 boats. Overall losses in 1943 were 243 U-boats.  If Black May were not enough, the year 1944 was even worse than 1943, with steady losses all year bringing the total up to 249 boats when the year came to an end.

With the war coming to an end, and overwhelming allied forces all around them, Germany lost over 120 U-boats in action in the first 5 months of the year.

Japan was only in the war to create a gambit so that Roosevelt could get into the war.  When Germany, Italy and Japan entered into the Tripartite Pact in September 1940, the three promised each other that if any of them went to war, all would.  That agreement could have been worded differently, but it wasn't.  Hitler thought he was scaring the US out of the war, but man was he stupid.  Roosevelt saw his chance and moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor.  This goaded the Japanese into a preemptive strike, which they carried out on Sunday, December 7, 1941.  Of course, Germany was compelled to declare war on the US on December 11, 1941.

A brilliant play, wasn't it?  Notice none of the Aircraft carriers were in port on that Sunday.  Since the Battle of Taranto in November 1940 the world was on notice that the aircraft carrier was the new capital ship of the era.  America sacrificed it's battleships at Pearl Harbor, but it's aircraft carriers were nowhere to be found.  Pity...as the Japanese were to find out six months later at the Battle of Midway (four Jap carriers sunk--ending Japanese domination of the Pacific).  From there it was just a cake-walk up the island chains until the home islands were threatened.  Then America delivered the most brilliant coup de grâce of all, saving not only American lives, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives in the bargain.  

The gnats of the Imperial Japanese Navy swatted off the map, America turned its attention to saving Britain, which was accomplished in 1945

I think you just made that up Quill and I doubt you will find any credible military historian who would back that up.

If you think that leaving the Pearl Harbor naval base undefended and at the mercy of a Japanese attack that sank or put out of action so many ships and also so many aircraft and left over 2000 dead then you really have lost the plot.

They entered the war in Europe to save themselves because they knew what night happen if they didn't.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Meh...U-boats.  Within a year of America joining the war, it applied its genius for systems and eliminated the threat.  It developed new technology to deal with problem, and by Black May 1943 (for the Nazis) German U-boat sailors were begging for shore duty.



Japan was only in the war to create a gambit so that Roosevelt could get into the war.  When Germany, Italy and Japan entered into the Tripartite Pact in September 1940, the three promised each other that if any of them went to war, all would.  That agreement could have been worded differently, but it wasn't.  Hitler thought he was scaring the US out of the war, but man was he stupid.  Roosevelt saw his chance and moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor.  This goaded the Japanese into a preemptive strike, which they carried out on Sunday, December 7, 1941.  Of course, Germany was compelled to declare war on the US on December 11, 1941.

A brilliant play, wasn't it?  Notice none of the Aircraft carriers were in port on that Sunday.  Since the Battle of Taranto in November 1940 the world was on notice that the aircraft carrier was the new capital ship of the era.  America sacrificed it's battleships at Pearl Harbor, but it's aircraft carriers were nowhere to be found.  Pity...as the Japanese were to find out six months later at the Battle of Midway (four Jap carriers sunk--ending Japanese domination of the Pacific).  From there it was just a cake-walk up the island chains until the home islands were threatened.  Then America delivered the most brilliant coup de grâce of all, saving not only American lives, but hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives in the bargain.  

The gnats of the Imperial Japanese Navy swatted off the map, America turned its attention to saving Britain, which was accomplished in 1945

I think you just made that up Quill and I doubt you will find any credible military historian who would back that up.

If you think that leaving the Pearl Harbor naval base undefended and at the mercy of a Japanese attack that sank or put out of action so many ships and also so many aircraft and left over 2000 dead then you really have lost the plot.

They entered the war in Europe to save themselves because they knew what night happen if they didn't.

There's a big difference between what was intended and what turned out to have happened.  No one could foretell that the Americans would defend the base that poorly.  

Adm. H.E. Kimmel was the 4-star Commander of the Pacific Fleet on the date of Pearl Harbor.  As a result of the lack of preparedness at the Pearl Harbor attack, Kimmel was removed from post, and reduced in rank to a 2-star Rear Admiral.  Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short was the commander responsible for the defense of U.S. military installations in Hawaii at the time of the Japanese attack.  He was called back to Washington DC and demoted to Major General (2-star).

The Roberts Commission, headed by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, was formed soon after the attack to assess the lack of preparedness. General Short, along with Admiral Kimmel, was charged with dereliction of duty. The report charged that he and Kimmel did not take seriously enough the war warnings and did not prepare for the attack.

Basically they were guilty as charged, despite the fact that the White House knew the attack was pending.  They, indeed, were not prepared.

As far as others who have offered the same theory about Roosevelt's pre-war political maneuvers:

George Edward Morgenstern. Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (1947).

Frederic R. Sanborn, Design For War: A Study of Secret Power Politics 1937–1941 (1951).

Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933–1941 (1952).

Would that I could claim to be the first to publish the thesis.  Lol.  Nevertheless, I do think it was a brilliant gambit...one that played Congress, Hitler and the entire Japanese Empire for patsies.

How Roosevelt Attacked Japan at Pearl Harbor
Myth Masquerading as History:



December 7, 1941, began as a typical Sunday for millions of Americans, but suddenly everything changed, irrevocably, in ways they would remember for the rest of their lives. As the news flashed from coast to coast, the bombing of Pearl Harbor mushroomed into a national disaster. People could scarcely believe the reports pouring out of their radios. How could it have happened? Who was to blame? What could be done to guard against surprise attacks in the future?

There were no easy answers, no quickly forged consensus. In these circumstances, perhaps it was inevitable that certain critics of the President would emerge as "Pearl Harbor revisionists," eager to accuse Franklin D. Roosevelt of having misled the public in regard to the coming of the war in the Pacific. These detractors paid little attention to Japanese military intrusions in East Asia in the decade prior to Japan's attack on the United States. They ignored the historical background that is needed for an understanding of what happened in 1941. Instead of carefully mapping their way through the records of the period, they hacked out a trail of Machiavellian conspiracy that twisted and turned and switched back on itself until it eventually led to the White House.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1996/fall/butow.html



It is now Roosevelt’s turn. I have already dealt with one of the myths about the president. There is time for a few more. There is extensive literature about Roosevelt’s policy toward war in 1940–41. Unfortunately most of it ignores the long available evidence. On the basis of decrypted Axis messages declassified in the mid-1970s, the noted German naval historian Jürgen Rohwer in 1984 published a
careful analysis that showed how intelligence on German submarine dispositions was carefully utilized to divert individual ships and convoys so that they would cross the North Atlantic safely. Far from seeking incidents, the United States was trying to avert them.

http://h-diplo.org/essays/PDF/JMH-Weinberg-SomeMythsOfWWII.pdf


lol your sources are idiotic revisionists Quill, who ignore countless evidence which debunks their idiotic hypothesis.

Lol...and one day there will be history books written to say there really were WMDs in Iraq, and that that Kennedy was killed by a stray bullet from a hunter's rifle, and that Challenger didn't crash because of any wrongdoing.  There will always be those around who will try to sell the whitewashed version of the story.  And there will be lots of money behind them...after all, it is the establishment's vested interest story. But listen to your own historical protector's argument:

Whitewashed wrote:These detractors paid little attention to Japanese military intrusions in East Asia in the decade prior to Japan's attack on the United States. They ignored the historical background that is needed for an understanding of what happened in 1941. Instead of carefully mapping their way through the records of the period, they hacked out a trail of Machiavellian conspiracy that twisted and turned and switched back on itself until it eventually led to the White House.These detractors paid little attention to Japanese military intrusions in East Asia in the decade prior to Japan's attack on the United States. They ignored the historical background that is needed for an understanding of what happened in 1941. Instead of carefully mapping their way through the records of the period, they hacked out a trail of Machiavellian conspiracy that twisted and turned and switched back on itself until it eventually led to the White House.

Ignorred intrusions in East Asia? No, I think the argument builds upon those facts. Machiavellian? Sounds like an argument as relevant as your mudder chews tobacco! In other words, that's not even a good try. You should tap into something a little less sophomoric for your rebuttal.

I think it is important to try on new clothes.  Especially if they fit better than the "official" suit.

In any event, I was just hearing from you and Irn that I made up the whole story...that no one credible would offer such a story.  While I would be proud to accept credit, it seems you and he are backing down from that line, eh?  I've accomplished that much.

The story about Roosevelt's maneuverings to get America into the war came at a time when the US needed heroes and heroic actions.  So it was probably less favorably received when it came out.  It has since been forgotten.  Too bad, it's one suit of clothes that fits better than the official uniform.

Sorry Quill but it is nothing short of a load of horseshit because all these revionists who makes these claims ignore countless facts and I read plenty of revisionist works, it does not mean they are right.

I never claimed you made this up because I am well aware of revisionist views on this, so that is a complete lie also.
It is all well and good reading other views, but in many books I am then critical of them, when they ignore basic facts, so try on new clothes, what you have to ensure is those clothes fit, if they do not fit like these revisionist claims, would you buy either?

No

The USA cut Japan's oil supply because of Aggressive Japanese action in Asia affecting US and western interests. the US was clearly trying to use embargoes and non military solutions to the problem of Japan conquering the east coast of Asia. It was not particularly expecting a military retaliation.
the USA was unprepared for Pearl Harbour simply because they though the Japanese were out side of effective strike range... Of course you can double the effective strike range of an aircraft IF you gave no intention on a return journey... thus the REAL strategic value of the Kamikaze.

Agree with Didge  the USA loves it's revisionist History where it didn't sit back to see how thing panned out until it was directly affected  

the USA WW2 is 2 years shorter than everyone else's....
We were already over in north Africa Fucking up Rommels shit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rats_of_Tobruk


@Quill
I think it they should have said no one but an American would say that because it is ridiculously laughable to any one else because of the Whole WE WERE ALL ALREADY INVOLVED.  You came late we were already shooting each other for 2 years straight ALL our nations were begging you to join, particularly Australia because we had no chance against Japan Alone and None of our European allies were in a position to help (UK was demanding what little forces we had to defend the UK)...  The notion that the USA needed Pearl Harbour to attack is Silly.. it forced you too... After 2 years of rebuffing Allies that asking for help

The 'Roosevelt manoeuvrings' don't Fit Anything but US revisionist history.... Reality show USA was more concerned about its Fiscal Interests until Forced into Action...  We were literally begging you to join well before Pearl Harbour.

Didge wrote:Sorry Quill but it is nothing short of a load of horseshit because all these revionists who makes these claims ignore countless facts and I read plenty of revisionist works, it does not mean they are right.

I never claimed you made this up because I am well aware of revisionist views on this, so that is a complete lie also.
It is all well and good reading other views, but in many books I am then critical of them, when they ignore basic facts, so try on new clothes, what you have to ensure is those clothes fit, if they do not fit like these revisionist claims, would you buy either?

No

I disagree. It makes more sense than the whitewashed story put out by the government. The putative "coincidence" that all the carriers were out of port on that weekend is a bit too much to swallow. The fact that the government tried on two or three versions of that story at the time, shows that they were fishing.

It reeks of 'flat-earth' thinking.