Four Suspected Islamists Terrorists Arrested In Raids Across London

Four suspected Islamist terrorists have been arrested in a series of raids across London. One of the suspects - aged 21 - was tasered during his arrest but was not injured and did not require medical treatment, Scotland Yard said. Counter terror police arrested the men - two aged 20 and two aged 21 - and were helped at one address by armed officers, although no shots were fired.

It is understood at least one of the suspects is believed to have travelled to Syria. A Whitehall source told the Press Association that officers believe the raids were an "early disruption" of what could have been a "significant plot". A Scotland Yard statement said: "These arrests and searches are part of an ongoing investigation into Islamist-related terrorism."

All men were arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and have been taken to police stations in central London and remain in custody. A number of residential addresses and vehicles are being searched by specialist officers in west and central London as part of the investigation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/07/four-suspected-islamists-terrorists-arrested-london_n_5947958.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Just waiting for Veya to tell me this is a set up ad that we do not have terrorists in the UK.

Notable terrorist cases since 2002

Burned-out Jeep used in the 30 June 2007 terrorist attack on Glasgow International Airport.
Notable terrorist convictions since the beginning of 2002 have included the following cases. For more information on each, please click on the links to see statements by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. (All links will open in a new window.)

• 10 June 2013
  Six West Midlands men were jailed for over 18 years each after pleading guilty to terrorist charges. They  admitted an attempt to carry out an attack on an English Defence League rally on 30 June 2012.
  West Midlands Police
  
• 26 April 2013
  Eleven men from Birmingham were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 40 months to life for their involvement in a major terrorist plot. They had planned to carry out suicide bomb attacks on a bigger scale than the 7/7 attacks in London in 2005.
  West Midlands Police
  
• 25 April 2013
  Three London men (Richard Dart, Imran Mahmood and Jahangir Alom) were jailed for a total of over 20 years after pleading guilty to engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 18 April 2013
  Four men from Luton (Zahid Iqbal, Mohammed Sharfaz Ahmed, Umar Arshad, and Syed Farhan Hussain ) were given lengthy jail sentences for engaging in conduct and preparation for acts of terrorism. The men had planned to carry out terrorist attacks in Luton and elsewhere with improvised explosive devices to be made using instructions from an Al Qaida magazine.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 9 February 2012
  Nine men who were members of a terrorist network in England and Wales were sentenced to between five and 17 years' imprisonment for offences including plotting to attack the London Stock Exchange and seeking terrorist training overseas.
  Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 18 March 2011
  Rajib Karim, an IT worker for British Airways, was convicted and sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment for supplying information about airlines to al Qaida terrorists in Yemen.
  Metropolitan Police
  
• 2 November 2010
  Roshonara Choudhry, a student from East London, was convicted of attempting to murder the MP Stephen Timms after being inspired by extremist sermons she had watched on the Internet.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 8 July 2010
  Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Khan and Waheed Zaman were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for conspiracy to murder persons unknown. By this point a total of twelve people had been convicted in seven trials for terrorism-related offences in connection with the 2006 aircraft bomb plot.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 14 September 2009
  In one of a series of trials, three men who plotted in 2006 to blow up aircraft mid-flight between the UK, America and Canada by using liquid explosives were jailed for life.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 17 December 2008
  Bilal Abdulla, an Iraqi citizen who worked in a hospital in Paisley, Scotland, was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment for his role in terrorist attacks carried out in London and Glasgow International Airport in June 2007.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 18 February 2008
  Five conspirators were convicted of plotting to kidnap and behead a British soldier and were sentenced to terms of between two years and life.
  Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 9 Jan 2008
  Sohail Anjum Qureshi, an Al Qaida-trained terrorist intent on carrying out an act of terrorism overseas, was jailed for four and a half years.
  Metropolitan Police
  
• 26 July 2007
  Five students were convicted on charges of possessing material for terrorist purposes with the intention of going to terrorist training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 11 July 2007
  The four would-be suicide bombers of 21 July 2005 were given life sentences following their convictions on charges of conspiracy to murder. A fifth man involved in the plot was convicted in November 2007.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 5 July 2007
  Three men were imprisoned for up to 10 years after being convicted of using the Internet to promote terrorism.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 15 June 2007
  Seven men were jailed for a total of 136 years for their involvement in Dhiren Barot's "dirty bomb" plot and "Gas Limos Project".
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 30 April 2007
  Five men were imprisoned for life after being convicted of a plot to attack targets such as shopping centres and nightclubs using fertiliser-based explosives; two others were acquitted.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 7 November 2006
  Al Qaida operative Dhiren Barot was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years' imprisonment after admitting a plot to attack UK and US targets using a "dirty bomb" and gas-filled limousines. 
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 7 February 2006
  Radical London cleric Abu Hamza was convicted of incitement to murder and sentenced to 7 years.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 13 April 2005
  Kamel Bourgass was convicted of plotting to commit a public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives to cause disruption, fear or injury. He was already serving a life sentence for the murder of PC Stephen Oake.
  Metropolitan Police • Crown Prosecution Service
  
• 1 March 2005
  Saajit Badat was imprisoned for 13 years following his admission that he had plotted with jailed shoe-bomber Richard Reid to destroy an airliner over the Atlantic.
  Metropolitan Police
  
• 1 April 2003
  Leicester residents Brahim Benmerzouga and Baghdad Merziane were each sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for their roles in fundraising for Al Qaida and other extremist groups.
  
• 27 February 2002
  Moinul Abedin was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment after being convicted of making large amounts of detonators and the explosive HMTD in a Birmingham house.
  

You probably have terrorist in the UK, I mean Understandably the Isle or Misery doesn't engender love from immigrants.... Fair is fair the locals treat immigrants shitty enough.



BUT I would add That means the current system works and no need for NEW and greater powers for Police!!!!!!

Well -- if we define a "terrorist" as "someone who aims, through violence, to conquer peoples and lands and force them to renounce their culture in favor of the culture of the terrorist," then the UK has not only harbored, but indeed sponsored, terrorists for several centuries now

Should add, the way this is going, the UK will start arming police and you'll begin to catch up with the U.S. police forces' death tolls. About 200 citizens killed on the streets per year, while I believe UK police haven't killed 200 citizens over at least a century?

Not to mention dogs. U.S. police shoot about 3,000 dogs to death every year. The dogs haven't killed one police officer, peace-loving beings that they are ...

Let me just say, having paranoid government employees roaming the streets with guns is 100 percent A-1 AWESOME, you guys're gonna LOVE it!

They are armed Ben.

Didge wrote:They are armed Ben.

With firearms? I thought the UK cops only broke out the guns in cases of criminals who had them ... if that's not the case, I stand corrected and have died a little inside ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:They are armed Ben.

With firearms? I thought the UK cops only broke out the guns in cases of criminals who had them ... if that's not the case, I stand corrected and have died a little inside ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28656324

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:They are armed Ben.

With firearms? I thought the UK cops only broke out the guns in cases of criminals who had them ... if that's not the case, I stand corrected and have died a little inside ...

Better start planning your spiritual burial..

Didge wrote:They are armed Ben.

I don't think anything has been determined by a jury, and here the story is front page news.

I'll wait for the facts. It is a well-publicized tactic that police use to glorify themselves, to shout up arrests but leave to the last page of the newspaper when they have to release them.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:They are armed Ben.

I don't think anything has been determined by a jury, and here the story is front page news.

Ben and I were talking about the Police being armed, if you care to read back Quill

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think anything has been determined by a jury, and here the story is front page news.

Ben and I were talking about the Police being armed, if you care to read back Quill

Follow your own advice, toots.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ben and I were talking about the Police being armed, if you care to read back Quill

Follow your own advice, toots.

I do not need to, the Police are armed on the streets in the UK, that is a fact.

And no one has proven these guys are terrorists...that's a fact.

This is just a lot of hype by police agencies to pump up their case for funding next year.

Quill, you seem to know a lot about Police methods in this country, where do you get your information from?

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

With firearms? I thought the UK cops only broke out the guns in cases of criminals who had them ... if that's not the case, I stand corrected and have died a little inside ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28656324

That's in Scotland.  They're not routinely armed in England.

nicko wrote:Quill, you seem to know a lot about Police methods in this country, where do you get your information from?

Anglo-American law is so common to both countries that they use each others cases for precedent.  For example, the 1843 English case of Daniel McNaughton is the basis for legal insanity in many jurisdictions in the US...it's even called the McNaughton Rule in many states.

The issue of evidence and pronouncement is not an matter of police methods, but criminal law.

From the BBC source above:

Although every police force has a firearms unit, for decades it has been an article of faith that in the mainland UK, almost uniquely among major industrialised nations, the police do not carry guns as a matter of course.

But with little fanfare at first, a policy of routinely allowing specialist officers to wear sidearms as they walk the streets of Scotland has come into being.

So, I was essentially right, right? Maybe things have begun to change in the last two months, but it's still not an apparently common, accepted thing or I doubt the BBC would have written a big article about it in August.

Ben, don't believe a word that the BBC say until you have checked with other media outlets.

nicko wrote:Ben, don't believe a word that the BBC say until you have checked with other media outlets.

Are they wrong in this case?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Ben, don't believe a word that the BBC say until you have checked with other media outlets.

Are they wrong in this case?

Well, they are biased at reporting some things...

Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/08/armed-police

The point, that British police officers rarely fire guns, is true — most officers there aren’t allowed to carry guns. But the comparison with Wilson’s shots that hit Brown isn’t exactly right.

The Home Office, the U.K. agency that oversees policing, publishes data on the use of firearms by British police officers every 12 months. The latest report, covering the 12 months that ended March 31, 2013, includes just England and Wales, not Scotland — which took over responsibility for police services in 1998.

In England and Wales over that period, police officers fired guns in just three separate incidents, not counting discharges for training or “animal destruction,” according to the Home Office. That doesn’t necessarily mean the officers fired just three shots. The Home Office doesn’t report any further detail on the incidents. One incident could involve firing but not hitting anyone; hitting people with one or two shots — as did fatal shootings by police in 2011 and 2012; or shooting eight times and hitting someone six times, as police did in a fatal shooting in 2005.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/police-in-england-and-wales-went-two-years-without-fatally-shooting-someone/

Denver cops:



British cop:

Now he's a whacky fellow!

eddie wrote:Now he's a whacky fellow!

He's in a good mood because he doesn't have to worry about carrying a machine gun or an RPG launcher!

Frazzled wrote:

Didge wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28656324

That's in Scotland.  They're not routinely armed in England.

Well the last time I looked Scotland was still in the UK

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Now he's a whacky fellow!

He's in a good mood because he doesn't have to worry about carrying a machine gun or an RPG launcher!

Instead, he is pretending he has a bow and arrow.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:Now he's a whacky fellow!

He's in a good mood because he doesn't have to worry about carrying a machine gun or an RPG launcher!

Instead, he is pretending he has a bow and arrow.

I thought it was a disco move

Good,old johnny. He sure can wear a white suit.
They should really bring back this fashion. It'd look,great with a beard.

"Just waiting for Veya to tell me this is a set up ad that we do not have terrorists in the UK."

Apart from a rotting evil corpse with a very guilty and haunted fanny that has to have glued itself to the throne, because she is still sitting upon it.  Along with her family and the merry boys from eton there are no terrorists.
These people more frightening to me than any so called Disney made up terrorists.  

Watch out Jane , you can't convince Didge Maybe the People with Huge amounts of Wealth and power are somehow responsible for the event caused by them acquiring and maintaining said power.

I'm not getting this??
Are you saying there aren't any terrorists, Veya?

eddie wrote:I'm not getting this??
Are you saying there aren't any terrorists, Veya?

Seems to me he's talking more about why they fight in the first place?

Terror is a method, not a person. It is a method that combines creating terror with use of violence.

In this country there is also a racial component...a terrorist is any non-white person, whom you would cross the street to avoid.

For cops, a terrorist is someone you raise to justify increased budgets.

For Republicans and Tories, a terrorist is an immigrant, a black man or a feminist.

Incorrect and also as a bad a stereotype as you are claiming onto Tories, thus a complete contradiction, where by this logic you are the same in poor views you hold.
I view a terrorist not by skin colour, as we are all one biological race, basically you are claiming Tories are all racist, which is absurd, and utterly stupid when we have terrorists, who are far right, sectarian, far left, religious etc, all with different ideologies.
Seriously, do you even buy some of the rubbish you write Quill?

eddie wrote:I'm not getting this??
Are you saying there aren't any terrorists, Veya?

no I am saying that terrorists don't exist for no reason, there have always been radicals but they find it hard to convince people UNLESS there is poverty and oppression that causes people to have such immense dissatisfaction with the life available to them that the feel the 'radicals dream' is a better alternative.

Even ISIS managed to recruit most of it members in Syria initially in the fight against Assad, who was undeniably responsible for significant oppression amongst his people.  This is also why it is important to look at the real motivators for a lot of the fighters rather than just go "they're following some crazy religious doctrine" which the vast majority are not they just wanted to be free of Assad and saw ISIS fighting him.

the Free Syria army is the other rebel group fighting Assad, currently ISIS is losing many of the local Syrians to the Free Syria Army as they represent what they want more accurately.

veya_victaous wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm not getting this??
Are you saying there aren't any terrorists, Veya?

no I am saying that terrorists don't exist for no reason, there have always been radicals but they find it hard to convince people UNLESS there is poverty and oppression that causes people to have such immense dissatisfaction with the life available to them that the feel the 'radicals dream' is a better alternative.

Even ISIS managed to recruit most of it members in Syria initially in the fight against Assad, who was undeniably responsible for significant oppression amongst his people.  This is also why it is important to look at the real motivators for a lot of the fighters rather than just go "they're following some crazy religious doctrine" which the vast majority are not they just wanted to be free of Assad and saw ISIS fighting him.

the Free Syria army is the other rebel group fighting Assad, currently ISIS is losing many of the local Syrians to the Free Syria Army as they represent what they want more accurately.

So in your opinion, why are the terrorists who attack uk and USA, so intent on attacking then?

eddie wrote:So in your opinion, why are the terrorists who attack uk and USA, so intent on attacking then?

I know you didn't ask me eds, but I'll taking a stab at that question because I have been wanting to get this down somewhere:

Terrorism is not merely an act of violence, as we expect in war.  It is not, for example, a taking of a strategic location like a beachhead or a mountain pass.  Nor is it crossing a river or raising a flag on a mountain.  There is no place or person associated with terrorism.  Terrorism is a form of communication.

Terrorism is a form of messaging.  It is one part statement, and another part emphasis by and with an act of violence…violence is a part of the medium.  Among the early terrorists was the KKK, an organization that protested the modernizing of race relations: from the emancipation proclamation, to the desegregation of the military, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and so on.  The KKK for the most part used violence to demonstrate their message and conviction:  

The Telegraph wrote:“The organisation – founded by ex-Confederate soldiers following the American Civil War – has long been far more ruthless and violent than any white supremacist group in the UK.”  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6419739/Ku-Klux-Klan-a-violent-history.html

The violence of the KKK is just as strong in the present day:

KKK Violent History wrote:A series of Klan murders in the 1960s, including the killing of the three civil rights volunteers commemorated in the film Mississippi Burning, were only cleared up over the past few years as loyalty to – and fear of – the Klan dwindled among white Southerners and all-white juries.

The violence continued into the 1980s – four elderly black women were shot but not killed in Tennessee in 1980 by Klansmen who had just taken part in an initiation rally. A year later, Michael Donald, a young black man in Mobile, Alabama, was the victim of a random lynching by two Klansmen. In 1997, one of them – Henry Hayes – became the first Klan member to be put to death for a Klan murder in the state since 1913.

Modernly, of course, it is popular to ‘victim posture’ when messaging on political matters.  That’s what we have been seeing in Gaza, where Hamas claims it is a victim as it hurls off missiles at Israel.  It’s the same thing when the KKK claims discrimination against whites.  Take a look at the Preamble for the KKK website:

Ku Klux Klan wrote:

America, Our Nation is Under Judgement from God!

“There is a race war against whites. But our people – my white brothers and sisters – will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way – law and order – love of family – love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. “
---National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb
http://www.kkk.com/

Despite the rhetoric—and the desire—terrorists do not hope to change the world by violence.  They hope to demonstrate their message via one or a few violent acts.  True, their violence is inevitably an act of anger, amply expressed, but that does not transform it into an act of war.  The anger is embedded in their message, and their message is emphasized with violence. The act is one of communication and the violence is merely intended as a medium, or emphasis.  While it may appear that terrorism is an act of war, it is not.  It is generally used when an act of war would be futile.

Incidentally this is why I say that ISIL is not the threat that, say, Nazi Germany was in the 1930s. ISIL is a noise maker, not a war machine. It is communicating a cause, not conducting a war.

Oh, it talks tough and does grisly things, but it's no more a war threat than a fart in the wind.

Hence, any war would be one we started, not them. And we would have to finish it.

Because we don't understand these things, we keep getting ourselves into these messes, with no way out, gaining the reputation of the big old ugly foreign occupier, formerly known as the UGLY AMERICAN.

We Americans are familiar enough with the role. It'll be fun sharing it with y'all Europeans. Welcome.

@eddie
What Quill said
PLUS
Economic and social oppression
Assad regime that the revolution in Syria was against and made the circumstances from ISIS to Rise was installed by Western powers.... SO maybe they want to attack us because we put the dictator in place that has oppressed them for almost 2 generations now....
maybe it is the fact that western corporations pay to keep the oppressors in power IF it is profitable for them...
Maybe the fact that children in a nation that the USA is NOT at war with 'fear clear blue skies'...

if you think you have a reason to fear some group in the middle east cause there is a chance you might get killed in one of their attacks, understand they have 100 time better reason to fear our nations attacks based on how many innocent get killed by them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/29/john-oliver-drones-last-week-tonight_n_5899716.html

IS arose out of an ideology, not western policies, it arose out of Salafism. Yes the west backed up enemies, because of conceived bigger threats, all of which is wrong, that though is not a reason behind the rise of extremism, which has been exported for the last few decades from Saudi Arabia.

This is not again about fear, which so many people get confused over, but real and perceived threats, of which is certainly the case in both Syria and Iraq where atrocities are being committed daily based along extreme religious ideologies.

To base a view on how many may commit terrorism is very short sighted, as if to say, its is okay to accept terrorism, because the amount of victims is small here, whilst ignoring it is massive else where in the nations of these core problems.
Nearly 200,000 have died in this conflict of extremism in Syria alone, nearly half a million to mainly sectarian violence between two Islamic sects in Iraq, thus you may want to look at the reality there.

IS leadership rose out of Salafism
the average grunt just wants a better life

the amount of dead in Syria/Iraq at the hands of ISIS is still less than in the Congo and Sudan by their radical extremists.... we ignore that... but they got no oil

and the amount of dead from US drone strikes in sovereign nation that the USA is not at War with exceed the death toll from ISIS..

ISIS maybe a threat to the world but US Drones are a bigger threat to most people on earth. As in literally for most human beings on the planet the USA is more likely to make you collateral damage than ISIS (or any terrorist group) is like to end your life.

We Expect Pakistani children to live with the risk that every time there is clear blue sky bomb might be dropped by the flying robot they cant hear or see put there by the USA. So to expect westerners to live with the risk ISIS pose to Westerners in western nations is fair enough (as it is significantly less)

EH?
Sudan does have oil.
No drone attacks that have taken out military targets, where sadly there is sometimes civilian casualties, the umber of dead would not even come close to those murdered by IS.

UN Report on ISIS: 24,000 Killed, Injured by Islamic State; Children Used as Soldiers, Women Sold as Sex Slaves.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/un-report-on-isis-24000-killed-injured-by-islamic-state-children-used-as-soldiers-women-sold-as-sex-slaves-127761/

 Pakistani children live with the risk of being blown up or shot by the Taliban daily, where far more again have been killed by terrorists. Where you seem to be missing the point on that the drones attempt to take out terrorists, the same ones who have caused the deaths over tens of thousands of civilians. There is no bases for your comparison or now to say people should just put up with terrorism, that would be absurd, as you are also trying to make something acceptable based off where casualties are even higher in Sudan. None of these examples is acceptable. Yet you seem to be making a case to make them acceptable, based off another, sorry that does not work as none of them are acceptable.

Maybe you should watch the report on drones, maybe you should Listen the Pakistani children? oh I forgot YOU KNOW what everyone thinks and feels EVEN IF THEY ARE LITERALLY SAYING THE OPPOSITE TO THE UN, You know they really much more scared of Taliban Even though the people actually getting bombed are saying otherwise.

When the US requirements for using drones is there is an 'imminent threat' but
'imminent threat' does not require there to be clear evidence of a threat to the USA or US interests in the immediate future. that sort of just say you blowing shit up for the hell of it.
Watch from the 4 min mark
so are you a member of Coldplay? by US laws for drone strikes you are be association.
Innocent man that was about the right height was deemed a legitimate target and the deaths of the 2 people with him acceptable..... Of Course He was just some innocent guy.
AND You seem to be missing the point that when you have robots in the sky dropping bombs on innocent people, YOU ARE THE TERRORIST. Cause quite frankly that is far more terrifying than some Middle eastern hill-billies.


THE point is ISIS is VERY BAD but the WEST is Also VERY BAD and worse than most Muslim nations when it comes to murdering innocent people in other countries. We cant pretend to be the good guys and call them the baddies and NOT expect people to cal the WEST a filthy Lying hypocrite cause WE ARE. We are Evil we need to accept that and try and convince them that we are the lesser Evil than ISIS Cause going on like 'our shit don't stink' is not fooling anyone... an plays right into the recruit propaganda about the West that ISIS and others use.

I do not need to watch anything because the intended target of drones is military, sometimes there is civilian casualties by mistake, this is not the case with the Taliban or IS, they target civilians, showing you are making the most ridiculous comparison. As show far more people have been the victims of the Taliban in Pakistan, all this you over look and the US is targeting these extremists, you know the ones killing and murdering people in cold blood, where they wish to impose a life that denies women any rights.

To also claim many grunts of IS are just looking for a better life? Wow, yes this better life, includes to them raping and murder. So I back drone attacks that target terrorists, you seem to make the most absurd claim this is equivalent to terrorists who have no care for the sanctity of life.
There is no comparison to the west and IS, that is complete bollocks, the west went into with the intent of removing to barbaric leaderships in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which then instead of taking this peace, Sunnis and Shia decided to kill each other to the tune of half a million. They had the chance of peace, they instead choose violence between each other, which created IS

Yeah clearly ISIS decided to ethnically cleanse the Kurds, Shia, Iraqi Christians and Yazidi while beheading a mere handful of British and American civilians because of the actions of the Evil West. Makes perfect sense.

veya_victaous wrote:IS leadership rose out of Salafism
the average grunt just wants a better life

the amount of dead in Syria/Iraq at the hands of ISIS is still less than in the Congo and Sudan by their radical extremists.... we ignore that... but they got no oil

and the amount of dead from US drone strikes in sovereign nation that the USA is not at War with exceed the death toll from ISIS..

ISIS maybe a threat to the world but US Drones are a bigger threat to most people on earth. As in literally for most human beings on the planet the USA is more likely to make you collateral damage than ISIS (or any terrorist group) is like to end your life.

We Expect Pakistani children to live with the risk that every time there is clear blue sky bomb might be dropped by the flying robot they cant hear or see put there by the USA. So to expect westerners to live with the risk ISIS pose to Westerners in western nations is fair enough (as it is significantly less)

I quite LIKE your idea there of a level playing field as long as it IS a level playing field, and everytime one of these extremeist nut jobs does "his thing" I can riot, burn holy books, and generally do likewise......

Brasidas wrote:I do not need to watch anything because the intended target of drones is military, sometimes there is civilian casualties by mistake, this is not the case with the Taliban or IS, they target civilians, showing you are making the most ridiculous comparison. As show far more people have been the victims of the Taliban in Pakistan, all this you over look and the US is targeting these extremists, you know the ones killing and murdering people in cold blood, where they wish to impose a life that denies women any rights.

To also claim many grunts of IS are just looking for a better life? Wow, yes this better life, includes to them raping and murder. So I back drone attacks that target terrorists, you seem to make the most absurd claim this is equivalent to terrorists who have no care for the sanctity of life.
There is no comparison to the west and IS, that is complete bollocks, the west went into with the intent of removing to barbaric leaderships in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which then instead of taking this peace, Sunnis and Shia decided to kill each other to the tune of half a million. They had the chance of peace, they instead choose violence between each other, which created IS

Well the People they are saying this ALSO said the same about US and British soldiers. Now I think Both are true, but not necessarily true of the majority of soldiers.

If you can't admit your own failing you are never going to progress, it also shows you racism in justifying the west's travelling to the other side of the planet to blow shit up that is not theirs, while condemning local people that now rebel from the ridiculous systematic oppression BY CORPORATIONS through their puppets that exist in the region.

Oh dear here we go again with screams of racism.

Run along chap, come back when you have something coherent to say.

victorisnotamused wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:IS leadership rose out of Salafism
the average grunt just wants a better life

the amount of dead in Syria/Iraq at the hands of ISIS is still less than in the Congo and Sudan by their radical extremists.... we ignore that... but they got no oil

and the amount of dead from US drone strikes in sovereign nation that the USA is not at War with exceed the death toll from ISIS..

ISIS maybe a threat to the world but US Drones are a bigger threat to most people on earth. As in literally for most human beings on the planet the USA is more likely to make you collateral damage than ISIS (or any terrorist group) is like to end your life.

We Expect Pakistani children to live with the risk that every time there is clear blue sky bomb might be dropped by the flying robot they cant hear or see put there by the USA. So to expect westerners to live with the risk ISIS pose to Westerners in western nations is fair enough (as it is significantly less)

I quite LIKE your idea there of a level playing field as long as it IS a level playing field, and everytime one of these extremeist nut jobs does "his thing" I can riot, burn holy books, and generally do likewise......

If you want to do that then we should stop with the flying robots... they do their thing and we send the flying death drones to blow shit up.... quite frankly I think our retaliation is already far more. But retaliation rarely solves disputes or anything else

the real point is how can we say we are innocent and expect to be safe when we drop bombs on innocent people over their, sure we can moralise it from our perspective but to do so will only be seen as our hypocrisy by any non westerner.
If we want to claim the high moral ground then we have to make and EFFORT to actually BE GOOD, and not blowing up innocent children is a start.

veya_victaous wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

I quite LIKE your idea there of a level playing field as long as it IS a level playing field, and everytime one of these extremeist nut jobs does "his thing" I can riot, burn holy books, and generally do likewise......

If you want to do that then we should stop with the flying robots... they do their thing and we send the flying death drones to blow shit up....  quite frankly I think our retaliation is already far more.  But retaliation rarely solves disputes or anything else

the real point is how can we say we are innocent and expect to be safe when we drop bombs on innocent people over their, sure we can moralise it from our perspective but to do so will only be seen as our hypocrisy by any non westerner.
If we want to claim the high moral ground then we have to make and EFFORT to actually BE GOOD, and not blowing up innocent children is a start.  

yup...I would agree with that....stop exporting our shit over there...seems good...and likewise lets stop importing their shit here.....

no more immigrants, and whilst we are at it lets remove those that are already here that we (with good reason) suspect of being part of "their " shit.....

seems like a DAMN fine idea.......

Veya justifying genocide off drone attacks.
Yep you heard it first here on newsfix, neglecting the fact, these extremists are targeting many Muslims, Christians and countless other faiths, where most of their followers are either foreign or Iraqis who were discriminated by Shia's where half a million Iraqi's have lost their lives mainly to sectarian violence, which now is down to drone attacks for some reason, not sectarian violence or any ideology.

So with this logic of Veya, every Christian in the world would be justified to kill Muslims, based on Christians being killed and persecuted by Muslims.

Yep completely absurd.