Still being blocked while Cameron and friends pretend they want it released. I think they're at the point where they're contacting people who are slagged off in it to ask them if they're okay with being slagged off or something.
Still being blocked while Cameron and friends pretend they want it released. I think they're at the point where they're contacting people who are slagged off in it to ask them if they're okay with being slagged off or something.
Wiki has it down as concluding on 2nd November 2011, nearly four years ago now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry#Criticism
What a complete shambles.
I took 'should military options be necessary' to be the key phrase in that document. I'd like to know what they have whited out, but it's not quite as sinister as the headlines suggest (the implication of which seems to be that they decided they were definitely doing it a year in advance), and probably what you would expect from a British Prime Minister (sadly).
Blair committed to going to war in Iraq ahead of telling us? I'm truly shocked. It was going to happen from the moment he pledged to stand "shoulder to shoulder' with the Americans. From memory it was never a secret that he wanted us to go in. He took it through parliament and won the vote. If he had lost that vote he would have resigned. I don't see that the process was undemocratic or deceptive. The case for war is another matter, of course.
So an i.q test?Originally Posted by Lewis
And the drunk argument doesn't hold up. That's just saying 'well drink is legal so everything else harmful should be'. If alcohol were a completely new drug, knowing what we do now, it would not be legal.
I was thinking more of a system that prioritises developed countries.
And yes, drink is legal so everything else harmful should be. Got it in one.
That's a ridiculous argument which doesn't show you in a good light at all. Making the point that drink causes untold damage as a good reason to legalise other things whoch cause untolkd damage is not the most moral case.
Your point about 'developed countries' is without doubt a clear case of Islamicophobiaism, masked.
Cultural supremacism ftw.
The moral case I care about is people doing what they want (and not telling me what to do).
It's quite amusing how quickly Harold went from arguing he was one of the "live and let live" crowd to telling Lewis why he was wrong about certain restrictions on how people should be allowed to live.
"Let's move on", will be the refrain from the establishment, of course.
I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies. But I wouldn't expect you to get that. I also don't recall saying any such thing.
Since there have been a few unreasonable arguments about them in the past couple pages, here's a good take on the SNP conference from a far less partisan writer: http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/...np-conference/
Toggle Spoiler
Blair had made it very clear in the course of events that he would exhaust diplomatic avenues. A commitment to go to war proves that that was (another) lie.
It's also illegal, but then so was the whole thing.
It's time for them to roll out the psychopath again.
The home secretary has vowed to "systematically confront and challenge extremist ideology" as she detailed new curbs on those who "spread hate".
Radical preachers will be banned from posting material online and anyone with convictions for extremist activity will be barred from working with children.
Deradicalisation classes will be made mandatory for others deemed a threat.
But Muslim leaders warned the strategy "continues down a flawed path" and risks "alienating" Muslims in the UK.
Also among the measures within the counter-extremism strategy are:
- A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists
- An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
- Extremism disruption orders to stop individuals engaging in extremist behaviour
- Closure orders for law enforcement and local authorities to close down premises used to support extremism
- Tougher powers for broadcasting regulator Ofcom so action can be taken against radio and television channels showing extremist content
- Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it
She really is fucking hateful. Who decides the next Tory leade? The members? If things are going to shit and they decide they need somebody less wet than Dave/George/Boris they might just go mental enough to give her the job.
How is extremism defined and who decided what constitutes extremism? There is a thin line between extremism and dissent.
If you substitute one for the other in the above list, things begin to get very worrying.
How would you define extremism?
In any case, it's no good letting in all these Muslims from the world's backwaters and then trying to deal with the mess you create by doing so. Closed or very closely controlled borders was the only way, even though it's probably too late to actually achieve much now.
Do you think every Muslim country is a "backwater", or just the ones those currently seeking asylum are from?
Pretty much, yes. Those which aren't backwaters (there aren't many) still have backwards ideas and practices.
I think people underestimate the hold Islam has over its followers compared to those of other faiths.
I think you have a warped perception of what many of the countries are like. For sure, there will be some shitholes, but there are also a lot of regular looking countries, with regular looking cities, with regular people who just happen to be Muslim.
Yes, London being one. What Islamic countries are you thinking of?
Well, there's Indonesia, population 255 million.
Malaysia, Algeria, Indonesia, Albania, Qatar (if we exclude human rights from shitholery).... Shall I go on?
They're still pretty shit. Not that it's really Islam's fault. The Arabs could have embraced atheism a thousand years ago and they would still have never progressed beyond slotting goats behind tents.
That's not exactly a brilliant list to showcase...
All those countries are perfectly fine. Certainly not shitholes.
They seem to be going utterly mental with this anti-extremism shit. The only upside is that it looks as if a few emails might be enough to land some of my work colleagues on a government hit-list.
Something needs to be done. You can argue May's approach is ultimately the wrong one (and there's a legitimate worry that the general tone of it may play into the hands of extremist groups), but a few of those bullet points in that post above seem reasonably sensible.
"Muslim leaders" might not like it, but I don't see them coming up with anything better, let alone something that might actually work. In the main, all they really seem to do is piss and moan.
Speaking of making sure institutions are 'protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists', Twitter sez that a former Labour minister has resigned the whip and called them a sack of shit.
EDIT: Stand down. It's nobody good.
Lord Warner. Who?
I'm tempted to quote Thomas Jefferson at you.
Crack on.
I'm sure you've heard it before. Those who sacrifice liberty for security will lose both, and deserve neither.
If "something" is to be done, it should be "something" consistent with personal freedoms.
As long as the said personal freedoms exercised aren't hurting anyone then I'd absolutely agree.
I don't think any of these, for example, come under that category though:
A full review of public institutions such as schools, further and higher education colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the civil service to ensure they are protected from "entryism" - or infiltration - by extremists
An official investigation into the application of Sharia law in the UK
Demands that internet service providers do more to remove extremist material and identify those responsible for it
It goes back to my question of what constitutes extremism. The last point could potentially be used to suppress all sorts of dissent.
It would have been easier for everyone if she'd just said 'Islamic Extremism', I agree.
It's a bag of shit. The effort within education seems to be particularly fucked; the training course that we're being made to take is the more power-puff thing I've ever sat through. From an IT point of view were now subject to safeguarding protocols that are completely unworkable and seem designed purely to ensure someone at the bottom of the ladder and their institution can be blamed if one of their gimps becomes the new Jihadi John.
What do you do Dav? Teach and Internet Service Provide?
I run an ISIS recruiting centre in the West Midlands.
Fucking knew it.
If it's anything like the recruitment centers I've been going to lately the success rate is so poor, we're probably safe till at least 2022.
Why do we exclude human rights? Surely the complete lack of such rights is at the very forefront of what a shithole is?
It's funny how such 'non-shitholes' have so many people wanting to leave them and come to Europe, I find.
That's definitely not true. They were, at one time, at the forefront of understanding. The problem is, they have stayed at that point because of their shit religion. Islam is a non-progressive religion.
And I'll ask you again, what constitutes extremism to you?
LOL at Harold's understanding of history. LOL once more.
You won't get away with that without expanding, I'm afraid.
He's kind of right. Putting it all down to Islam is a bit of a stretch but it's not that far off.
It's very far off. The Islamic world achieved and maintained their position at the "forefront of understanding" for some time while Islam was at the height of its power.
To recognise this (or not, if you're aggressively philistine like Harold) but then maintain that Islam is synonymous with backwardness is pretty contradictory.
The problems that the Islamic world are experiencing are relatively recent (i.e. not endemic) and are attributable mainly to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent collapse of things like Arab nationalism. Yes, Islam is not blameless but there's no reason why we should identify the extremes like salafism with the entire thing. And at the end of the day, Islamic countries are mostly middle-income. They're not economically dominant, but then they do exist mainly in the middle of some very large deserts and don't have the other advantages that western society has had.
Err, that's pretty much what I alluded to. 'Science' wasn't really a thing back then. When it became a thing, proving Islam backwards in many ways, Islam and those following it strictly, have been left behind.
You only have to look at the attitudes towards gays and women in the Islamic world to see this highlighted.
What the fuck are you on about? How did science "becoming a thing" "prove Islam backwards in many ways" and how does that counter the fact that Muslims led the world for some time?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote