Jump to content

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


mormont

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, mormont said:

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.

ISIS aren't Arab nationalists who propose to stop at the ethno-linguistic border of the Arab people. There are imitating the early Caliphate not Colonel Nasser. My line about the flag on designated days was obviously a reference to requests for the Union Jack only to be flown on certain days in NI. Although the black flag flying over x is a claim/demand that has been made by some British jihadists and by British ISIS supporting groups ...

Quote

Home-grown vs home-grown?

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.

A poor comparison. By the time of the troubles people of Irish descent in England had no substantial ties to the Irish conflict. If they had you'd have seen aspects of the situation in the west of Scotland replicated in places like Liverpool.

On demographics: The Irish population, including people with one Irish grandparent (most of whom would not identify as Irish - making this statistic totally useless) is about 10%. The Islamic population is about 6% but has a very young demographic profile, as roughly 1/10 babies in the UK (maybe just England) are Muslim. 

3 hours ago, mormont said:

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.

Most people, especially in England, will not be that bothered if Ireland unites. It won't be seen as a threat to their way of life or their constitution. I might regret that but that's the way it is. Witness how the latest NI election got hardly any coverage. So the ultimate objective of the IRA wasn't/isn't a massive threat to the people of the mainland UK.

3 hours ago, mormont said:

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

I'm not wheeling out every report/study I've ever read on the issue for your convenience, no. What I gave you is the general profile, wrt religious/ethnic background for a Islamic terrorist in the UK and pointed you towards further reading.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The BlackBear said:

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.

He was elected as a Conservative and as a UKIP candidate, so the people of Clacton seem to like him as an individual, not just for the party he represents. Science is still struggling to answer the question why, but that's Clacton for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who was born in 1977 I can tell you I and no-one I know was killed or injured by the IRA.  I can also say the same right now of Islamic Terrorism.

However I personally felt far more threatened by the IRA and I felt it more likely that I might get blown up by the IRA during the time of the troubles than I do right now because of Islamic terrorism.  I also felt that being Bombed by the IRA far more likely than being Nuked by Russia for that matter.

I never visited Ireland, republic or Northern until several years after the good Friday agreement.

This may be down to the fact that although most of the violence was happening in Northern Ireland, which meant I was mostly safe unless I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time,, There were still regular bombing on mainland England.  and far more bomb warnings.   although the incidents may have been happening at approximatively the same frequency (I've no idea if this is correct) as Islamic Terrorism today in the Westeren world, those incidents are spread over a much greater percentage of the world, making my individual chances of being killed far less. 

Also although I don't personally know anyone who was killed or injured, I know several people who where caught up in the bomb warnings and evacuations and the chaos that caused.   We where also far more likely to hear 3rd hand stories of other peoples experiences.   For instance my cousin was almost shot by the IRA we think, lucky for him when he was stopped at a road block by masked gunman he was travelling in a car with his friend who had a strong Irish accent, and did the talking.

 

 

So in short, It was always a fear in the background and something you where aware off but got on with things anyway.   That fear went away after the peace process looked like it was actually working.  and it didn't really come back certainly not as noticeably.

 

I'm far more worried Brexit could lead to boarder controls back on the Irish boarder and that could trigger a new round of Troubles.   than I personally worried about Islamic Terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The BlackBear said:

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.

Switching party doesn't automatically trigger a by-election - it only happened last time because he decided as a point of principle that he was going to resign and then run again as UKIP. He's stated that becoming an independent is different from joining a new party and so there is no need for him to resign again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

My line about the flag on designated days was obviously a reference to requests for the Union Jack only to be flown on certain days in NI.

That wasn't obvious, I'm afraid, and answers nothing about why it would be in any way relevant or make the comparison sound. It doesn't.

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

A poor comparison. By the time of the troubles people of Irish descent in England had no substantial ties to the Irish conflict. If they had you'd have seen aspects of the situation in the west of Scotland replicated in places like Liverpool.

You don't actually know much about this, do you?

I've sat in the living room of a guy who had to flee NI over an internal IRA dispute and now lived in an area of England where there was a large population of Irish descent. He was there precisely because this allowed him to be out of Ireland but somewhere the IRA could keep an eye on him.

That aside: the other point you're missing here is that most people descended from Muslim immigrants have no substantial ties to IS, either. The comparison is therefore absolutely valid. There's a section of the population which contains a tiny subset of people linked to terrorism. Your point about Muslims being a 'growing' section of the population is nothing but paranoia.

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I'm not wheeling out every report/study I've ever read on the issue for your convenience, no.

None, in fact.

 

 

Look, nobody doubts that there are significant differences between the IRA and IS. For one thing, as has been pointed out, the IRA were a good deal more successful in some ways: and yes, they had completely different tactics, and were domestic instead of an international threat and so on.

The problem here is that you and C4JS are characterising the difference in ways that suggest that the IRA campaign was always seen in rational terms by both sides. This is historical revisionism. There was hysteria around the IRA threat. There was panic sometimes. There was irrational prejudice and unwise government measures and apocalyptic tabloid talk and hand-wringing of all sorts, just as there is now.

It's like how every wave of immigration is 'different this time'. Sure, in some ways it might be, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't the same level of hysteria last time, or that this time the hysteria is justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

That wasn't obvious, I'm afraid, and answers nothing about why it would be in any way relevant or make the comparison sound. It doesn't.

The comparison was between the compromise deal the IRA got and a hypothetical compromise we would make with Islamic terrorists.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

You don't actually know much about this, do you?

I've sat in the living room of a guy who had to flee NI over an internal IRA dispute and now lived in an area of England where there was a large population of Irish descent. He was there precisely because this allowed him to be out of Ireland but somewhere the IRA could keep an eye on him.

I can't boast links of any sort with members of the IRA, former or otherwise, that's true ... 

It is a question of degree/scale though. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK, especially in England, with Irish descent, will not have lived in communities with ties to the conflict. Glasgow and environs are the exception proving the rule. Places like Liverpool also had very substantial populations of Irish descent but the IRA weren't getting recruits or money there.  

 

Quote

That aside: the other point you're missing here is that most people descended from Muslim immigrants have no substantial ties to IS, either. The comparison is therefore absolutely valid. There's a section of the population which contains a tiny subset of people linked to terrorism. Your point about Muslims being a 'growing' section of the population is nothing but paranoia.

Most muslims don't have links to ISIS but many live in communities where recruiting for ISIS or similar, albeit somewhat less extreme groups, has the terrain it needs to flourish. That's very different to most cities with populations boasting Irish descent in the UK during the troubles.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Look, nobody doubts that there are significant differences between the IRA and IS. For one thing, as has been pointed out, the IRA were a good deal more successful in some ways: and yes, they had completely different tactics, and were domestic instead of an international threat and so on.

The problem here is that you and C4JS are characterising the difference in ways that suggest that the IRA campaign was always seen in rational terms by both sides. This is historical revisionism. There was hysteria around the IRA threat. There was panic sometimes. There was irrational prejudice and unwise government measures and apocalyptic tabloid talk and hand-wringing of all sorts, just as there is now.

I didn't use the rationality concept actually. My idea of what counts as rational is based on how beliefs are derived from each other and how consistent they are rather than their content. I myself do not have an issue with regarding ISIS as rational.

However, it is odd left-wing posters are kicking up a fuss about this aspect of C4JS's argument (and I think he has a point). The IRA were waging what could be called an anti-colonial struggle for an end goal most people on the left would likely regard as somewhat legitimate (unification of Ireland), even if they did not always think the same about the methods. The IRA were also socialists or Marxists, so they said. ISIS, on the other hand, have a set of beliefs and goals totally beyond what would normally be regarded as rational in the thought-world of most denizens of this board, including millenarian/apocalyptic politico-theological beliefs. Contrary to James Arryn ISIS do not have clearly delineated territorial goals either. Conceivably they might settle for certain boundaries, in the unlikely event they survive the next few years, but their stated aim is world domination.

By definition, hysteria is never justified.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pebble said:

As someone who was born in 1977 I can tell you I and no-one I know was killed or injured by the IRA.  I can also say the same right now of Islamic Terrorism.

Not quoting the lot for space on screens; but the same could pretty much describe my formative years too, except that I'm a year older, avoided a bomb by about half an hour, and had (military) father's of friends with direct experience of the IRA.

 

To me, the IRA was a much more real and direct threat, and rightly so; with a strong determination that we had to put up with it as we couldn't "give in" and there was no ethically acceptable way of "winning".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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

Carswell always seemed like an odd fit with much of UKIP, he may have been a fanatical Eurosceptic but he didn't seem quite crazy enough to fit in with the rest of the party leadership. It's a bit bizarre to see some of the leading UKIP figures celebrating losing their only MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

Carswell always seemed like an odd fit with much of UKIP, he may have been a fanatical Eurosceptic but he didn't seem quite crazy enough to fit in with the rest of the party leadership. It's a bit bizarre to see some of the leading UKIP figures celebrating losing their only MP.

Well, they agree with you that he's never been properly UKIP. Plus there was the story that he lobbied against Farage getting a peerage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Switching party doesn't automatically trigger a by-election -

I found this out later, I was under the impression it was mandatory.

Stephen Nolan had an interview a short while ago with Paul Nuttall, who was really laying into him. How he'd never been really part of the party, he was bringing them down, has no honor all this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2017 at 6:05 PM, Chaircat Meow said:

The comparison was between the compromise deal the IRA got and a hypothetical compromise we would make with Islamic terrorists.

In other words 'between something that happened and something I just made up'.

On 25/03/2017 at 6:05 PM, Chaircat Meow said:

Glasgow and environs are the exception proving the rule. Places like Liverpool also had very substantial populations of Irish descent but the IRA weren't getting recruits or money there.

I'm afraid they were: Liverpool was a major centre of the drugs trade that financed the purchase of weapons for the IRA.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/irish-drug-lords-move-liverpool-7284166

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ira-druggang-linked-to-double-british-murder-26823015.html

On 25/03/2017 at 6:05 PM, Chaircat Meow said:

Most muslims don't have links to ISIS but many live in communities where recruiting for ISIS or similar, albeit somewhat less extreme groups, has the terrain it needs to flourish. That's very different to most cities with populations boasting Irish descent in the UK during the troubles.

Again, if this is true you should be able to provide proof. I'll wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mormont said:

In other words 'between something that happened and something I just made up'.

Stop being so daft. Just admit I said something you didn't understand and you can't let it go.

16 hours ago, mormont said:

I'm afraid they were: Liverpool was a major centre of the drugs trade that financed the purchase of weapons for the IRA.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/irish-drug-lords-move-liverpool-7284166

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ira-druggang-linked-to-double-british-murder-26823015.html

This proves nothing of the sort.

1. From the articles:

''Garda sources last week said there has never been any evidence of an organisational link between the IRA and drugs criminals in the UK, but they are aware that former IRA members, including members of one well known family with both IRA and criminal links in south inner Dublin, has links to organised crime and drug dealers in Liverpool and the Midlands of Britain.''

''Gardai believe that the "IRA" associates of the Liverpool gang, referred to in the Haigh trial, are almost certainly the "ordinary" Dublin traffickers and their associates who were formerly in the IRA but who have continued "trading" on the IRA name in order to scare opponents.''

2. The links are also said to be from over the last two decades, and so prove no link for most of the troubles.

3. There is no evidence here that this happened because of sympathy for the IRA in Liverpudlian people of Irish descent. These gangs worked together for a number of reasons, including rubbing shoulders in the costa del sol because they had villas there.

16 hours ago, mormont said:

Again, if this is true you should be able to provide proof. I'll wait.

My statement shouldn't be controversial. It is pretty clear that substantial numbers of muslims in Britain live in communities where their beliefs/background make them vulnerable to extremist Islamic causes. This is a very different situation to that obtaining in communities with lots of people of Irish descent, in England, during the troubles.

If you insist on a few links:

http://henryjacksonsociety.org/2017/03/05/islamist-terrorism-analysis-of-offences-and-attacks-in-the-uk-1998-2015/ (there is a link to the executive summary)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurojihad-Patterns-Islamist-Radicalization-Terrorism-x/dp/1107437202 This book is good on the second-generation immigrant issue, and the prevalence of British-Pakistanis among UK terrorist offenders.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8qZTB-PfSAhVHIcAKHQbIBeQQFghKMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhenryjacksonsociety.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F01%2FRADICAL-ISLAM-ON-CMAPUS.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEKgk1Ku6euv2DnwuNZb4BdkGpHyw&sig2=yXvBAuk0qVKFvC-GsSVm-A  On universities and in particular the views of students in Isocs. 

Comprehensive.

https://www.ict.org.il/UserFiles/Islamic Radicalization in UK.pdf

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Stop being so daft. Just admit I said something you didn't understand and you can't let it go.

?

What you've said is perfectly straightforward, and this is the first suggestion that I 'didn't understand' it. I do understand it, and have accurately pointed out that the comparison is ridiculous bullshit. I'm quite happy to 'let it go' at that.

7 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This proves nothing of the sort.

1. From the articles:

''Garda sources last week said there has never been any evidence of an organisational link between the IRA and drugs criminals in the UK, but they are aware that former IRA members, including members of one well known family with both IRA and criminal links in south inner Dublin, has links to organised crime and drug dealers in Liverpool and the Midlands of Britain.''

''Gardai believe that the "IRA" associates of the Liverpool gang, referred to in the Haigh trial, are almost certainly the "ordinary" Dublin traffickers and their associates who were formerly in the IRA but who have continued "trading" on the IRA name in order to scare opponents.''

So these people were in the IRA, we agree.

7 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

2. The links are also said to be from over the last two decades, and so prove no link for most of the troubles.

Are you under the impression that the IRA are no longer a thing?

7 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

3. There is no evidence here that this happened because of sympathy for the IRA in Liverpudlian people of Irish descent. These gangs worked together for a number of reasons, including rubbing shoulders in the costa del sol because they had villas there.

The IRA have a different MO than IS, on that we agree: and one difference is that their MO relies on buying in weapons and explosives. This requires money and smuggling routes. That's why terrorist groups on both sides of the Troubles worked with, and in many cases effectively merged with, organised crime.

7 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

My statement shouldn't be controversial. It is pretty clear that substantial numbers of muslims in Britain live in communities where their beliefs/background make them vulnerable to extremist Islamic causes. This is a very different situation to that obtaining in communities with lots of people of Irish descent, in England, during the troubles.

If you insist on a few links:

I do, and I still await them. None of the links provided suggest any difference between Irish communities and Muslim ones, nor even mention Irish communities as far as I can see. They're just links to research into terror attacks and radicalisation of Muslims in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

As someone who was born in 1977 I can tell you I and no-one I know was killed or injured by the IRA.  I can also say the same right now of Islamic Terrorism.

However I personally felt far more threatened by the IRA and I felt it more likely that I might get blown up by the IRA during the time of the troubles than I do right now because of Islamic terrorism.  I also felt that being Bombed by the IRA far more likely than being Nuked by Russia for that matter.

 

My (Catholic) grandmother from Derry left Ireland for London during the 1930s after clashing quite badly with republican friends and families over a lot of these issues, particularly over the legitimacy of violence (so it's possible I wouldn't be here without it: my grandmother only met my grandfather after moving to London). My mother was caught up in the aftermath of one of the 1990 London bombings (might have been the stock exchange one, not sure).

The company I was working in on 9/11 had its headquarters in the twin towers and lost over 300 people, although I was only a temp worker so didn't know anyone there personally. A friend of mine was on the train behind the one that was blown up at Aldgate on 7/7. My former workplace in Westminster was put on lockdown during the attack last week. Fortunately I've never come close to an incident myself, but I have plenty of friends and family who have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/24/2017 at 11:13 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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.

What is the end-goal of destroying the NHS? Destroying an independent BBC? Driving people to poverty and food banks? Forcing dying people to look for work?

How can I possibly relate to all that?

And still Tories are still merely humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/03/2017 at 11:13 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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.

I think you need to think about what drives groups of people to extremes, especially violent extremes, rather than try to think about the end game of a violent extremist group. And then what attracts previously non-extremist people to the extremist cause.

Also consider: would we have Islamic terrorism if it was not for 1) the mishandling of the formation and protection of Israel, and 2) the meddling of the USA in Iran's political affairs to oust a progressive democratic govt and install a tyrannical monarch? And of course Israel exists at least in part because of the Holocaust, which means to a certain extent Islamic terrorism is causally linked to European Anti-Semitism.

Those are two western interventions in the affairs of the middle east that have had enormous ripple effects that trace directly to Islamic extremism and terrorism.

On 26/03/2017 at 2:44 AM, The BlackBear said:

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.

Technically, people vote for the individual not the party in FPP elections. Therefore the party affiliation of an MP should not be a consideration in these situations. However, if parliament has anti-party swapping legislation that requires a by-election if an MP resigns from one party and joins another then that puts a different spin on things. However, becoming independent and not affiliating with a different party is a significant distinction. By being independent you are only affecting the fortunes of one party not two parties and you are not giving a power boost to another party. Therefore arguably an anti-party swapping rule should not be invoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Also consider: would we have Islamic terrorism if it was not for 1) the mishandling of the formation and protection of Israel, and 2) the meddling of the USA in Iran's political affairs to oust a progressive democratic govt and install a tyrannical monarch?

The answer to both of these questions is yes. The terrorism is a natural end product of conservative reaction to the modernization of the Middle East. The first major Islamic terrorist attack in modern history, the seizure of Grand Mosque in Mecca, is completely unrelated to either of your two reasons. Also, the original enemy No.1 for Islamic terrorists was Soviet Union and not the West (see Afghanistan in the 80's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Gorn said:

The answer to both of these questions is yes. The terrorism is a natural end product of conservative reaction to the modernization of the Middle East. The first major Islamic terrorist attack in modern history, the seizure of Grand Mosque in Mecca, is completely unrelated to either of your two reasons. Also, the original enemy No.1 for Islamic terrorists was Soviet Union and not the West (see Afghanistan in the 80's).

True. Also at some point there has to be blame attributed towards those who are committing terrorist acts, rather than constantly looking backwards and blaming ourselves for it. There are many root causes for the rise of what we now call islamic extremism, and we could point the fingers at Saudi Arabia, the US, Russia.. the British Empire.. The Ottoman Empire.. it goes on. 

Whats driving those people and making them go to extremes varies wildly from person to person. The latest UK terrorist was British born, with a history of violence who found Islam whilst in jail. What was his aim? What did he hope to achieve? Was he upset about Israel or Iraq or did he just not like the decadent west. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was about a cartoon that people didn't like. All I'm saying is we can't always be apologists for this sort of thing. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think you need to think about what drives groups of people to extremes, especially violent extremes, rather than try to think about the end game of a violent extremist group. And then what attracts previously non-extremist people to the extremist cause.

Also consider: would we have Islamic terrorism if it was not for 1) the mishandling of the formation and protection of Israel, and 2) the meddling of the USA in Iran's political affairs to oust a progressive democratic govt and install a tyrannical monarch? And of course Israel exists at least in part because of the Holocaust, which means to a certain extent Islamic terrorism is causally linked to European Anti-Semitism.

Those are two western interventions in the affairs of the middle east that have had enormous ripple effects that trace directly to Islamic extremism and terrorism.

Technically, people vote for the individual not the party in FPP elections. Therefore the party affiliation of an MP should not be a consideration in these situations. However, if parliament has anti-party swapping legislation that requires a by-election if an MP resigns from one party and joins another then that puts a different spin on things. However, becoming independent and not affiliating with a different party is a significant distinction. By being independent you are only affecting the fortunes of one party not two parties and you are not giving a power boost to another party. Therefore arguably an anti-party swapping rule should not be invoked.

In all likelihood, we would.

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...