Rayvin

For a horrifying moment, I thought they were going to do it...

This fucking thread...

Why don't you give the True Geordie a call, he does podcasts now apparently. Seems to have several hundred thousand viewers per video, sure he'd be happy to help you out

That makes sense. If attacks on the West are a recruiting tool to get more people to buy into the ideology, then attacking bigger countries with larger Muslim populations would make sense, and wouldn't necessarily suggest an ulterior political motive. Very believable but hard to support, isn't it? Either way, surely either side of this argument makes it clear that we shouldn't be meddling in these countries, and that we'd experience fewer attacks if we weren't? Both Gloom and HF's posts support that point.

Ok sorry, but could someone address HF's Iceland point with something other than sniping? I'm keen to hear the response. And FWIW I agree with you guys that religion is the primary motivator, but I'm becoming less and less convinced with every post that goes by ducking his question. Why don't they attack Iceland? Have they ever attacked anyone against whom they had no tangible political motive? None of this changes the fact that they are religiously motivated, but it does suggest that we could avoid being targets by acting like Iceland does, surely?

I agree actually, that's a particularly strong headline. What's with the 'GIANT map of Britain' as well. Is that just to reinforce the point somehow?

The Fish has now been schooled.

"Today this country faces a crisis as grave as when Churchill vowed we'd fight them on the beaches" Right wing tabloids are the worst

That is genuinely a fucking disgrace. Fucking hell HF, why aren't you up in arms

...I think I've had my fill of this thread for today Also, Renton, I notice you never addressed my points in response to your Hillary and Obama post. Every time I post that you go quiet on it which is fine as long as you don't then bring up the same points in a day or two and claim I never addressed them

Agreed. There's no hope.

I actually don't disagree with any of this, seriously. I've said in a few posts that I can totally see Islam for what it is, and that I think the left handles it really poorly (and hypocritically). My central point, which does appear to be supported to a degree, is that we make ourselves bigger targets through meddling. I sort of wonder if, were we not meddling, we would have to take in as many immigrants as we do. We destabilised Syria, so we get immigrants. We overthrew Saddam, left a power vacuum, and get more immigrants, as ISIS surges forward with no power structures to keep it down. Yes Islam is entirely responsible for its ideology and for the actions they take. Entirely. But we are responsible for making it easier for them to do what they do. Maybe that's how I should argue this in future.

Here man, no one sees you like that I'm sure. If I've implied that in any way in my posts then, and knowing full well Gemmill will take the piss out of me for it, I apologise. I agree with a lot of your views on Islam, as I've said in this thread (which I hope is clear). Literally the only thing you and I seem to disagree on in this respect, is that I think we reap what we sow with Islam to a degree in terms of our repeated destabilizing actions in their countries - and you think they'd be attacking us anyway because they're called to do so. You're absolutely right to put your opinion down on here, and I'm personally grateful that you do. I find it allows me to challenge my views I also appreciate how you don't say you're not smart enough to appreciate how stupid I am

I think his point was more about the potential unseen motives of those leading it, and the extenuating circumstances (personal, economic, and geopolitical) that might make the attackers more susceptible to brainwashing. I don't agree with him on the first bit as I think that they're probably zealots all the way to the top, but it's impossible to know for sure. On the latter bit, I think he has a point - otherwise, as has been said repeatedly to no answer, they'd all be doing it.

Get better internet I video call at work and on a decent connection it's near seamless these days.

If it was that big a risk, Parky would have been exiled years ago. Also, you're supposed to be one of the main protagonists in the expulsion of Leazes

Video call?

I think I asked why you weren't doing it remotely a few weeks back and you cited the audio issue. Apparently the world's need of your analysis is too great as to be disrupted by petty things like production quality

Are you back on the podcast then?

Also, the things we like about the West - liberalism, tolerance and free thought, can all be achieved without the nonsense we get at government level. Our culture predates Neoliberalism.

This article, which I've posted previously, sums up my view. They are actors in the perpetuation of a failing system. I have no strong feelings on either of them beyond the system they represent: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot If I had to choose between all three options, I'd say it's mostly 1 with a slight tendency towards 2 insofar as they know what they're doing, and they do it to remain in the position they're in. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're evil. Just complicit. Our model isn't going to last if it continues to fail.

Sigh... And around we go again... Just because the West is 'better' than these other countries, doesn't mean it isn't something that could be drastically improved, or that it is above criticism. In fact, I would argue that the West is as good as it is despite the way we're run. Agree on the lack of a ME enlightenment.

Hard to argue with Parky on this point tbf. All it seems to do these days is instill victim complexes and make everyone really angry at each other. Although I get all my feminism from the Guardian, so what I see may not be representative.

Ouch.