Jump to content

UK Politics: Trumpy Cat Trumpy Cat Where Have You Been?


mormont

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'm really happy that this hasn't lead to some sort of huge anti muslim over reaction. That he just appears to be a lone nutter I guess helps. But then many of these terrorists do just appear to be those who are at the most extreme fringes of their groups, often with similar profiles. Almost always do they seem to have a criminal past, are quite troubled and have a history of being very vocal of their beliefs. 

http://www.voanews.com/a/two-new-arrests-in-london-terror-attack/3780056.html

 

 

Quote

London police said Friday they have made two more arrests in connection with the attack near Parliament.

 

Quote

In the hours after Wednesday’s attack in the heart of London, police conducted raids around the country in search of anyone who may have given support to Masood. Eight men and women were arrested Thursday on suspicion of planning terrorist acts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Hard to know what connection they had to him though. He may well have still been mostly acting alone, or they may have given him some help , or they may not have informed the police or the police might just be grabbing people they know are connected

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Hard to know what connection they had to him though. He may well have still been mostly acting alone, or they may have given him some help , or they may not have informed the police or the police might just be grabbing people they know are connected

 

Never the less, your claim that he appears to be a lone nutter seems... Premature......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since 9/11, 64 British people have been killed in the UK by Islamic terrorism (including the attackers). You can increase that to 94 if you include the tourists at the Tunisian resort in 2015.

In contrast, in the last 16 years of the Troubles, 1,177 people were killed in the UK, 569 of whom were civilians.

Quote

I think the IRA stuff will always be different to islamic terrorism in peoples minds. In comparison the IRA appeared relatively logical, they had an end goal that was based on real world objectives. You could negotiate with them, you could understand what they wanted. They weren't hugely different to you or I. 

The IRA wanted to overthrow the majority wish of the people of Northern Ireland in wishing to remain part of the UK. When they couldn't get their own way they started killing people. Their cause was unjust, undemocratic and unattainable. It was not logical and it was as sure as fuck not rational.
 

Quote

 

I know there was a level of worry about the IRA when I was growing up, but it really didn't feel anything like the public reaction to what is happening these days.

 

There was a massive amount more concern over the IRA then there has been about Islamic terrorism (perhaps outside of a limited timeframe after 9/11 and 7/7). For all of the IRA's "precautions" in giving warnings, they still killed a ton of innocent people and carried out successful assassinations and nearly-successful political attacks, such as trying to blow up a large chunk of the British government in Brighton in 1984. They were a considerably greater threat than any of these clowns have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think the IRA stuff will always be different to islamic terrorism in peoples minds. In comparison the IRA appeared relatively logical, they had an end goal that was based on real world objectives. You could negotiate with them, you could understand what they wanted. They weren't hugely different to you or I. 

Islamic terrorism feels different. It doesn't make sense to many people, its not like you can argue a case for it on a logical level. Its based on a level of religious devotion that nobody in their right mind could understand. 

I know there was a level of worry about the IRA when I was growing up, but it really didn't feel anything like the public reaction to what is happening these days. 

Wow.

Can you think of any other reasons why one group blowing things up, killing civilians and celebrating their dead as martyrs feels scarier than the other in spite of killing far fewer people in the UK, outside of your subjective take on the sanity of their agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Wow.

Can you think of any other reasons why one group blowing things up, killing civilians and celebrating their dead as martyrs feels scarier than the other in spite of killing far fewer people in the UK, outside of your subjective take on the sanity of their agenda?

C4JS's statement does not merit a 'wow.' 

The NI conflict ended with provision for a future referendum in the province which could see the UK suffer a permanent territorial loss and the Protestant population brought under the control of a government in Dublin. What will it take to end this new conflict: the green/black flag of Islam flying over Buckingham Palace on designated days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

C4JS's statement does not merit a 'wow.' 

The NI conflict ended with provision for a future referendum in the province which could see the UK suffer a permanent territorial loss and the Protestant population brought under the control of a government in Dublin. What will it take to end this new conflict: the green/black flag of Islam flying over Buckingham Palace on designated days?

You are being a tad selective in your interpretation. 'Expulsion of foreign invaders' has been the most commonly voiced objective for both movements. 

That there are other/additional motivations ascribed to militant Islamic groups is neither surprising nor distinct, given that the IRA during their time were also ascribed with other/additional objectives, for example communism and anarchism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

You are being a tad selective in your interpretation. 'Expulsion of foreign invaders' has been the most commonly voiced objective for both movements. 

That there are other/additional motivations ascribed to militant Islamic groups is neither surprising nor distinct, given that the IRA during their time were also ascribed with other/additional objectives, for example communism and anarchism. 

I am not very interested in which doomed Islamic terrorist outfit is currently flavour of the month. Domestically, the crucial difference is that the IRA were Irish living in the province while the current aggressors don't come from Iraq/Syria or wherever but are home grown, being nearly always descendants of immigrants from the Islamic world.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

C4JS's statement does not merit a 'wow.' 

The NI conflict ended with provision for a future referendum in the province which could see the UK suffer a permanent territorial loss and the Protestant population brought under the control of a government in Dublin. What will it take to end this new conflict: the green/black flag of Islam flying over Buckingham Palace on designated days?

Exactly. While it had religious elements the struggle was mostly political and had a pretty well defined end goal. 

As you say, what is the end goal of Islamic extremism? There really isn't one, even if we all became part of a caliphate. Its terrorism due to just pure hatred. That's harder to understand, how could any of us relate to something like that. It puts people into the category of monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I am not very interested in which doomed Islamic terrorist outfit is currently flavour of the month.

Domestically, the crucial difference is that the IRA were Irish living in the province while the current aggressors don't come from Iraq/Syria or wherever but are home grown, being nearly always descendants of immigrants from the Islamic world.

   

Honestly don't understand what point you're making with first line. 

Your second point I can at least identify, but fail to see it's significance. First, it's incorrect in fact. Judith Ward, Jan Taylor, Patrick Hayes, etc. And it's important to remember that the vast majority of IRA attacks were bombings, and the vast majority of the bombers were never identified, so...

But even if the above weren't true, there are practical considerations which would make 'home grown' types much more likely now than at the time of the Troubles; internet recruiting/self-identifying, significantly increased security w/regards to importing attackers/weapons post 9-11 and individuals now can educate themselves on making/using bombs and weapons on their computer rather than requiring experts to teach them in person.

And then, overlooking all that, what difference does it make in terms of being less rational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Exactly. While it had religious elements the struggle was mostly political and had a pretty well defined end goal. 

Hmm, not sure that was really the case but the Good Friday Agreement doesn't really satisfy that 'well defined end goal' for the IRA anyway. It's basically a rehash of the Sunningdale Agreement the IRA at the time wanted no part of. 

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Wow.

Can you think of any other reasons why one group blowing things up, killing civilians and celebrating their dead as martyrs feels scarier than the other in spite of killing far fewer people in the UK, outside of your subjective take on the sanity of their agenda?

I think the argument that Islamic terrorism is worse than the Troubles is nonsense but I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. I don't think their bullshit about running a military campaign made it in anyway ok but generally speaking the IRA were at least nominally trying to avoid killing what they thought were 'civilian' bystanders compared to that being a major goal of this attack and the July 7th bombings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Honestly don't understand what point you're making with first line. 

You brought up the territorial demands of bin Laden and ISIS.

43 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Your second point I can at least identify, but fail to see it's significance. First, it's incorrect in fact. Judith Ward, Jan Taylor, Patrick Hayes, etc. And it's important to remember that the vast majority of IRA attacks were bombings, and the vast majority of the bombers were never identified, so...

At the time the IRA were an Irish paramilitary movement dedicated to reunifying Ireland. The fact it had one or two members drawn from elsewhere (presumably the self-loathing British Left) is irrelevant. FYI the police thought it was very odd that the two Englishmen were taken into confidence by the IRA. If you really think the IRA weren't Irish you're off the reservation.

43 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

But even if the above weren't true, there are practical considerations which would make 'home grown' types much more likely now than at the time of the Troubles; internet recruiting/self-identifying, significantly increased security w/regards to importing attackers/weapons post 9-11 and individuals now can educate themselves on making/using bombs and weapons on their computer rather than requiring experts to teach them in person.

The point is that the current aggressors are drawn from a muslim population that lives on the British mainland as opposed to a distinct Irish population in Ireland (mostly NI) with a long-running religio-historical gievance.

43 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

And then, overlooking all that, what difference does it make in terms of being less rational?

Depends how you define rational. I knew what C4JS meant though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I think the argument that Islamic terrorism is worse than the Troubles is nonsense but I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. I don't think their bullshit about running a military campaign made it in anyway ok but generally speaking the IRA were at least nominally trying to avoid killing what they thought were 'civilian' bystanders compared to that being a major goal of this attack and the July 7th bombings.

I could argue distinction without difference, and/or state apologism (collateral damage vs. civilian bystanders) but in that I was addressing another deliberate obtusity (what colour is the elephant in the room?) I'll just say ok on that.

But, aside from racial/religious elements, I'll point out that people seem to be guilty of contrasting reasoned retrospectives on A with heat-of-the-moment takes on B, and deciding that A was more reasonable. Even a shallow dive into contemporary reactions to IRA attacks in their own time would depict a very very different take on the nature/reason ability/agenda of those attacks within the British populace.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

1.You brought up the territorial demands of bin Laden and ISIS.

2.At the time the IRA were an Irish paramilitary movement dedicated to reunifying Ireland. The fact it had one or two members drawn from elsewhere (presumably the self-loathing British Left) is irrelevant. FYI the police thought it was very odd that the two Englishmen were taken into confidence by the IRA. If you really think the IRA weren't Irish you're off the reservation.

3.The point is that the current aggressors are drawn from a muslim population that lives on the British mainland as opposed to a religious distinct Irish population in Ireland (mostly NI) with a long-running religio-historical gievance.

4.Depends how you define rational. I knew what C4JS meant though.

1. Still not getting it. In case of confusion, the two movements I was discussing were not AQ andISIL, but AQ/ISIl/MBH/etc. and IRA/FB/IRB/etc. Both stated 'expulsion of foreign invaders' as their objective, though possibly the the first will reconsider when they hear you are non-plussed.

2/3. Well, we're making progress. One or two (or three) is above your original statement. And there are more, and again not that many were ever identified so hard to say what the real number is. Probably they hated their leftness, though, at least when they ran out of other people's money. (Anachronizing!)

But in any event, let's agree it was a significant minority. More, I'll even say that attacks outside Ireland itself were a minority of the actions of the paramilitary movement. Mostly it was Irish people attacking people in Ireland in order to get them to leave Ireland, so by it's nature was much more likely to transpire in Ireland.

But, then, this is even more true for the present situation. Do you know how many people in Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan have been killed by these people? Estimates vary, but even the most conservative numbers dwarf the 'outside' victims by a proportion much higher than Irish/non-Irish attacks. Why is the old dispute cohesive but the new one clearly divided? Or is it because the other victims in this case are 'over there' and elephant-coloured?

4. I'll avoid obvious dog-whistle zingers, partly because I don't think that's all this is and partly bcause I've already mea-culpa'd to at least some deliberate obtusity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

1. Still not getting it. In case of confusion, the two movements I was discussing were not AQ andISIL, but AQ/ISIl/MBH/etc. and IRA/FB/IRB/etc. Both stated 'expulsion of foreign invaders' as their objective, though possibly the the first will reconsider when they hear you are non-plussed.

2/3. Well, we're making progress. One or two (or three) is above your original statement. And there are more, and again not that many were ever identified so hard to say what the real number is. Probably they hated their leftness, though, at least when they ran out of other people's money. (Anachronizing!)

But in any event, let's agree it was a significant minority. More, I'll even say that attacks outside Ireland itself were a minority of the actions of the paramilitary movement. Mostly it was Irish people attacking people in Ireland in order to get them to leave Ireland, so by it's nature was much more likely to transpire in Ireland.

But, then, this is even more true for the present situation. Do you know how many people in Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan have been killed by these people? Estimates vary, but even the most conservative numbers dwarf the 'outside' victims by a proportion much higher than Irish/non-Irish attacks. Why is the old dispute cohesive but the new one clearly divided? Or is it because the other victims in this case are 'over there' and elephant-coloured?

4. I'll avoid obvious dog-whistle zingers, partly because I don't think that's all this is and partly bcause I've already mea-culpa'd to at least some deliberate obtusity. 

The 'original statement' I made was that the IRA were Irish, something most people would accept as true regardless of whether they recruited a few oddballs from different nationalities (such as, for instance, Rose Dugdale) here and there. 

Bolded: I'm talking about the differences in the kind of threat posed to the UK (and others). NI was a dispute that could be (and was) settled in the enemy's favour without endangering anything most British people cared very much about. In the struggle with this enemy that might not be possible.

Anyway, this is off topic for this thread really, so no more responses from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The NI conflict ended with provision for a future referendum in the province which could see the UK suffer a permanent territorial loss and the Protestant population brought under the control of a government in Dublin. What will it take to end this new conflict: the green/black flag of Islam flying over Buckingham Palace on designated days?

This is misleading. The IRA's weren't asking for a referendum, as I suspect you well know. They wanted reunification, regardless of the wishes of the Unionist population or for that matter anyone else, and the expulsion of the Brits from Ireland. Many of them still do.

Meanwhile, IS (as the name suggests) want an Islamic State in the Middle East, but they've never asked for whatever that flag nonsense is supposed to indicate.

In other words, it's a false comparison, and it's false because making a true one wouldn't help your case.

13 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I am not very interested in which doomed Islamic terrorist outfit is currently flavour of the month. Domestically, the crucial difference is that the IRA were Irish living in the province while the current aggressors don't come from Iraq/Syria or wherever but are home grown, being nearly always descendants of immigrants from the Islamic world.

What are you on about? The crucial difference is that IRA terrorists were home grown, and most IS terrorists are also home grown? As for 'being nearly always descendants of immigrants' - can you show that this true, firstly (it wasn't in this last case) and can you explain why it's relevant?

If we're trying to make a distinction between IRA terrorism and IS terrorism based on the idea of 'roots', that isn't going to work. It's not just about one or two Englishmen joining the IRA. Do you understand why the IRA never bombed in Scotland, for example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mormont said:

This is misleading. The IRA's weren't asking for a referendum, as I suspect you well know. They wanted reunification, regardless of the wishes of the Unionist population or for that matter anyone else, and the expulsion of the Brits from Ireland. Many of them still do.

I didn't say the Belfast Agreement was what the IRA wanted from the start. I was pointing to what they got.

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Meanwhile, IS (as the name suggests) want an Islamic State in the Middle East, but they've never asked for whatever that flag nonsense is supposed to indicate.

IS do not have limited territorial demands. ISIS and ISIL are, from their point of view, statements of fact not intent.

5 hours ago, mormont said:

What are you on about? The crucial difference is that IRA terrorists were home grown, and most IS terrorists are also home grown? As for 'being nearly always descendants of immigrants' - can you show that this true, firstly (it wasn't in this last case) and can you explain why it's relevant?

I am pointing to the very different demographic base of the new kind of terrorism. The first was Irishmen from Ireland (usually NI) but the second are muslims living in the UK, a group that will make up an ever increasing share of the population and whose objectives won't be satisfied by chipping away part of the British state, on the other side of the Irish Sea, which few British people care about very deeply.

 

5 hours ago, mormont said:

If we're trying to make a distinction between IRA terrorism and IS terrorism based on the idea of 'roots', that isn't going to work. It's not just about one or two Englishmen joining the IRA. Do you understand why the IRA never bombed in Scotland, for example?

You know about the Irish Catholic influence in the west of Scotland right? Heard of Celtic fc?

5 hours ago, mormont said:

As for 'being nearly always descendants of immigrants' - can you show that this true, firstly (it wasn't in this last case) and can you explain why it's relevant?

The average home-grown terrorist will be of either south-Asian/African descent. Proving their parents were muslim is a little harder (not as much in the way of statistical evidence) and a few will be converts (although there appears to usually be an ethnic element to this). The recent report into the five wards in Birmingham responsible for a disproportionate amount of UK terrorist activity is a good place to start if you want to begin thinking about the background/upbringing of these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

No it isn't. It would be misleading if I had said the Belfast Agreement was what the IRA had wanted from the start. However, I was pointing to what they got.

And to do so in the context you did, comparing it to some hypothetical flag business you just made up, was misleading. Comparing the stated goals of the two terrorist groups is one thing, comparing an outcome to something you just made up is bloviating. At least have the honesty to admit that you were talking crap.

20 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I am pointing the very different demographic base of the new kind of terrorism.

Home-grown vs home-grown?

20 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The first was Irishmen from Ireland (usually NI) but the second are muslims living in the UK, a group that will make up an ever increasing share of the population and whose objectives won't be satisfied by chipping away part of the British state, on the other side of the Irish Sea, which few British people care about very deeply.

An ever-increasing share of the population, yes, but from a much lower base. There were more Irish immigrants and people of Irish descent in England at the height of the troubles than there are Muslims now, and it will be a considerable time before Muslims equal those numbers if they ever do. So whatever point you're trying to make there, it looks like hype.

The idea that few British people cared about Northern Ireland I will leave sitting there, as I can do nothing to make that look worse that it already does.

20 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

You know about the Irish Catholic influence in the west of Scotland right? Heard of Celtic fc?

That was my point, yes. Neither side in the Troubles ever planned or carried out an attack in Scotland because of the diaspora there (many of whom actively supported their side's activities in Northern Ireland).

20 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The average home-grown terrorist will be of either south-Asian/African descent. Proving their parents were muslim is a little harder (not as much in the way of statistical evidence) and a few will be converts (although there appears to usually be an ethnic element to this). The recent report into the five wards in Birmingham responsible for a disproportionate amount of UK terrorist activity is a good place to start if you want to begin thinking about the background/upbringing of these people.

So... no, you can't, is the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

In other news, Carswell has finally parted company with UKIP and will sit as an independent, so UKIP now have no MPs.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39393213

It seems odd that this wouldn't trigger a by-election, the difference between him switching to another party and becoming independent seems slim at best. For better or worse he was elected as an UKIP MP, not as an Independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...