London Bridge

[Apech]

On 6/8/2017 at 8:32 AM, Apech said:

 

Theresa May has presided over a 20,000 cut in police numbers and wants, as part of her response to terrorism to regulate the internet and make file encryption illegal - which as far as I can see has no relevance to the actual attacks.  She presents herself as 'strong and stable' but actually regularly makes u turns on major policy areas, she is disengaged with people generally and stands fort he vested interest of corporate capitalism.  She also voted against some of the terror legislation which Corbyn opposed.  I think she would make the worst possible person to negotiate Brexit and would do so from a basis of a complete lack of trust.  Her 'no deal is better than a bad deal' would be a disaster - whatever else happens we need to preserve some trading possibilities with Europe.

 

 

 

Ha ha see what I mean? 

[Chang]

7 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Ha ha see what I mean? 

 

Theresa May has indeed created an unholy mess.

 

Thinking to increase her small majority in Parliament she went to the people, thinking Jeremy Corbyn so unpopular that she would wipe the floor with him.

 

Now her small majority is even smaller and her own position must be deemed untenable. During the campaign she resembled nothing so much as the unpopular Headmistress of a Secondary School whilst Corbyn has emerged as a sort of Obi Wan Kenobi figure who has galvanised the youth vote and furthered the Marxist cause in the U.K.

 

Brexit is now destined to descend into farce and we must not expect the new parliament to run its full course. How long it will be to the next election is hard to predict but I fear that it will be sooner rather than later.

 

Corbyn has been lauded as the only politician who speaks the truth and the young have believed this seeing him as a Marxist Messiah. It is all damned mess and we are in for interesting times.

 

 

[Apech]

10 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

Theresa May has indeed created an unholy mess.

 

Thinking to increase her small majority in Parliament she went to the people, thinking Jeremy Corbyn so unpopular that she would wipe the floor with him.

 

Now her small majority is even smaller and her own position must be deemed untenable. During the campaign she resembled nothing so much as the unpopular Headmistress of a Secondary School whilst Corbyn has emerged as a sort of Obi Wan Kenobi figure who has galvanised the youth vote and furthered the Marxist cause in the U.K.

 

Brexit is now destined to descend into farce and we must not expect the new parliament to run its full course. How long it will be to the next election is hard to predict but I fear that it will be sooner rather than later.

 

Corbyn has been lauded as the only politician who speaks the truth and the young have believed this seeing him as a Marxist Messiah. It is all damned mess and we are in for interesting times.

 

 

 

yes - in fact somehow May calling the election in the way she did allow Corbyn to brush all his dodgy past under the carpet - and despite the Labour Party elation I think they missed the very important point that they lost and it will still be a Conservative Govt. propped up by the DUP who are the most backward looking far right set of ultra conservatives you may care to meet.  I think what this disguises is that while the Labour party used to be the alternative party of government it is no longer - it is now a party of campaigns, opposition and protest.

 

Also May will have to rethink her rather unthinking approach to Brexit - i.e. Brexit means Brexit = the hardest Brexit possible based on a one off referendum -  while actual Statesmanship would indicate that it is imperative to get a managable deal which does not screw the economy on the basis of that decision.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Apech

[Chang]

21 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

yes - in fact somehow May calling the election in the way she did allow Corbyn to brush all his dodgy past under the carpet - and despite the Labour Party elation I think they missed the very important point that they lost and it will still be a Conservative Govt. propped up by the DUP who are the most backward looking far right set of ultra conservatives you may care to meet.  I think what this disguises is that while the Labour party used to be the alternative party of government it is no longer - it is now a party of campaigns, opposition and protest.

 

Also May will have to rethink her rather unthinking approach to Brexit - i.e. Brexit means Brexit = the hardest Brexit possible based on a one off referendum -  while actual Statesmanship would indicate that it is imperative to get a managable deal which does not screw the economy on the basis of that decision.

 

 

 

I believe that Theresa May's position is untenable and it is difficult to imagine that she will be leading the Tories into the next election. I have just been talking to a Conservative Party Mandarin with whom I worked in a previous incarnation.He tells me that the Tories are of the opinion that the next election could come as quickly as October.

 

The Tories are still catching their breath at the moment but come tomorrow, after a good nights sleep and a hearty breakfast, they will get to work sharpening their knives and looking for a leader who has the charisma to take on Obi Wan Corbyn. It is difficult to see who that might be but one man springs to mind as the contender.

[Marblehead]

New paths for the Brits to travel.  I hope they don't trip and fall.

 

[Apech]

Just now, Marblehead said:

New paths for the Brits to travel.  I hope they don't trip and fall.

 

 

 

Just watched May on TV announcing her intention to form a government with the Ulster Unionists - she made it sound as if she won a big victory.  The Conservatives are ruthless with failure - they even ditched Thatcher in her late prime -  she will go soon I think.

 

 

[Chang]

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Just watched May on TV announcing her intention to form a government with the Ulster Unionists - she made it sound as if she won a big victory.  The Conservatives are ruthless with failure - they even ditched Thatcher in her late prime -  she will go soon I think.

 

 

 

She will go but first a viable replacement must step forward. There will be much whispered discussion in shadowy rooms by men whose faces you could not put a name to. Interesting  times.

[johndoe2012]

On 7/6/2017 at 1:45 AM, Apech said:

 

 

Well there's clearly something to that - but whatever karma a woman sitting in a bar at night who gets stabbed 15 times by a crazed Wahhabi - what has she got to do with arms sales?  Probably nothing.  So why aren't the politicians who approve the arms deals getting it in the neck???  I think all this self hate thinking gets us no closer to an answer.  In fact it makes it worse and quickly becomes part of problem.

 

 

Karma can wait ages until it gets evened out. 

 

You need to stop thinking and reacting to understand. 

 

It is not self hate but explaining the root cause. 

 

When we understand karma better we can feel when our actions are not aligned with the whole. 

 

The whole always try to even out the energy so the calculations sum up so to speak. 

Edited June 9, 2017 by johndoe2012

[Michael Sternbach]

It should be obvious that what the radical Islamists want to achieve is to get more support from the Muslim world at large. They are well aware of their being a small minority. By their terrorist acts, they want to incite non-Muslims against Muslims. Successful warfare needs public support, and public support needs a bogeyman. It's the old "divide and conquer" principle.

 

Islamic "holy warriors" are expecting great rewards in their after-lives. That's why it is so great that over 130 Imams refused to perform the funeral prayers, normally offered to all Muslims, for the London bridge terrorists. They are setting a strong signal that way. As are the numerous expressions of solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslims in the wake of this and similar attacks.

 

Killing a small number of civilians doesn't make any sense as a physical act of war. But what this is about is psychological warfare. The risk of dying in a traffic accident rather than in a terrorist attack is still so much greater in any Western country. But the play with the deep rooted fears of its populace takes its effect.

 

The terrorists may be frenzied madmen. The minds behind them are cold-blooded calculators. They do understand the Art of War. And the Western right wingers with their populist catchphrases are playing right into their hands.

 

But maybe some of them wish the separatism and armed conflict too? They abhor the Muslim culture and would just love eradicating it, much like the radical Islamists would love to do away with Western culture...

 

War is based on a field of tension between two opposite poles. Depolarize the tension and you neutralize the potential for conflict. This is the Art of Peace.

[Apech]

42 minutes ago, johndoe2012 said:

Karma can wait ages until it gets evened out. 

 

You need to stop thinking and reacting to understand. 

 

It is not self hate but explaining the root cause. 

 

When we understand karma better we can feel when our actions are not aligned with the whole. 

 

The whole always try to even out the energy so the calculations sum up so to speak. 

 

I completely accept karma - what I don't accept is the false attribution of a particular putative cause to a specific effect.  Actually the word karma means 'action' so when people speak of it they usually mean 'the result(s) of action'.  So in effect karma in this sense simply points to cause and effect.  In a moral and ethical sense the Buddha included 'intent' as karma - in other words you should moderate your own personal actions and intents in the knowledge that it is inevitable that they have effects.  Just to repeat, in the cases of most of the terrorists of both Manchester and London were treated very well by British people and British society and the violence they exhibited was a result of their own ignorance and anger.  If we reflect on this that somehow 'the West' is to blame and should therefore indulge in self-hate and guilt this is not only inappropriate but also ineffective in addressing the problem of having several thousand people in this mental state in our midst.  Most of the people but not all those who indulge in this phoney analysis are just parroting empty virtue signalling platitudes.  Pointing to the Iraq war, Afghanistan or drone strikes does not point to the root cause since those events in themselves arose in dependence on other causes and conditions going back in history.  So you might as well say its all the fault of the plague that weakened Byzantium and led to the Ottoman Empire - or even Alexandre the Great should not have invaded North India.  Do you have sufficient knowledge to correctly identify the chain of causality which led to murderous stabbings?  No you don't.  Sorry but its meaningless.

 

 

[Apech]

44 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

It should be obvious that what the radical Islamists want to achieve is to get more support from the Muslim world at large. They are well aware of their being a small minority. By their terrorist acts, they want to incite non-Muslims against Muslims. Successful warfare needs public support, and public support needs a bogeyman. It's the old "divide and conquer" principle.

 

Islamic "holy warriors" are expecting great rewards in their after-lives. That's why it is so great that over 130 Imams refused to perform the funeral prayers, normally offered to all Muslims, for the London bridge terrorists. They are setting a strong signal that way. As are the numerous expressions of solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslims in the wake of this and similar attacks.

 

Killing a small number of civilians doesn't make any sense as a physical act of war. But what this is about is psychological warfare. The risk of dying in a traffic accident rather than in a terrorist attack is still so much greater in any Western country. But the play with the deep rooted fears of its populace takes its effect.

 

The terrorists may be frenzied madmen. The minds behind them are cold-blooded calculators. They do understand the Art of War. And the Western right wingers with their populist catchphrases are playing right into their hands.

 

But maybe some of them wish the separatism and armed conflict too? They abhor the Muslim culture and would just love eradicating it, much like the radical Islamists would love to do away with Western culture...

 

War is based on a field of tension between two opposite poles. Depolarize the tension and you neutralize the potential for conflict. This is the Art of Peace.

 

 

Being peaceful will not stop those with intent to kill you.  Sorry but just examine history.  If you want peace you have to be in a position of strength.  We have to be realistic.

[Chang]

46 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

It should be obvious that what the radical Islamists want to achieve is to get more support from the Muslim world at large. They are well aware of their being a small minority. By their terrorist acts, they want to incite non-Muslims against Muslims. Successful warfare needs public support, and public support needs a bogeyman. It's the old "divide and conquer" principle.

 

Islamic "holy warriors" are expecting great rewards in their after-lives. That's why it is so great that over 130 Imams refused to perform the funeral prayers, normally offered to all Muslims, for the London bridge terrorists. They are setting a strong signal that way. As are the numerous expressions of solidarity between Muslims and non-Muslims in the wake of this and similar attacks.

 

Killing a small number of civilians doesn't make any sense as a physical act of war. But what this is about is psychological warfare. The risk of dying in a traffic accident rather than in a terrorist attack is still so much greater in any Western country. But the play with the deep rooted fears of its populace takes its effect.

 

The terrorists may be frenzied madmen. The minds behind them are cold-blooded calculators. They do understand the Art of War. And the Western right wingers with their populist catchphrases are playing right into their hands.

 

But maybe some of them wish the separatism and armed conflict too? They abhor the Muslim culture and would just love eradicating it, much like the radical Islamists would love to do away with Western culture...

 

War is based on a field of tension between two opposite poles. Depolarize the tension and you neutralize the potential for conflict. This is the Art of Peace.

As always your posts appear the epitome of reason and sound common sense.

But appearance is not always reality.

What you fail to accept is that Islam is simply not happy to follow its own way and happily co-exist with followers of other religions or no religion at all.

Muslims are told to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination.

I know from previous posts that you are fully aware of this fact and yet you still suggest that the west is in some way to blame for what Muslims are honour bound to do - subjugate, convert or kill unbelievers. The most that far right groups can expect to achieve is spur Muslims on to a more fundamentalist manner of following their Prophets wishes.

I do not doubt that you are good man Michael and your posts remind me of a prayer I repeat often. "May God protect us from good men."

 

[zerostao]

 

[MIchael80]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

Being peaceful will not stop those with intent to kill you.  Sorry but just examine history.  If you want peace you have to be in a position of strength.  We have to be realistic.

 

1 hour ago, Chang said:

As always your posts appear the epitome of reason and sound common sense.

 

 

But appearance is not always reality.

 

 

What you fail to accept is that Islam is simply not happy to follow its own way and happily co-exist with followers of other religions or no religion at all.

 

 

Muslims are told to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination.

 

 

I know from previous posts that you are fully aware of this fact and yet you still suggest that the west is in some way to blame for what Muslims are honour bound to do - subjugate, convert or kill unbelievers. The most that far right groups can expect to achieve is spur Muslims on to a more fundamentalist manner of following their Prophets wishes.

 

 

I do not doubt that you are good man Michael and your posts remind me of a prayer I repeat often. "May God protect us from good men."

 

Good posts!

 

And lets not forget the simple knowledge that most islamic terror attack deaths are other muslims.

So they kill not for the wars the west brought unto the middle east, they kill all which they deem not real muslims.

 

They have done that for a long time and only dictators were able to keep them in a kind of weird balance. Since the west has removed these dictators the middle east shows its ugly face.

[Apech]

44 minutes ago, MIchael80 said:

 

Good posts!

 

And lets not forget the simple knowledge that most islamic terror attack deaths are other muslims.

So they kill not for the wars the west brought unto the middle east, they kill all which they deem not real muslims.

 

They have done that for a long time and only dictators were able to keep them in a kind of weird balance. Since the west has removed these dictators the middle east shows its ugly face.

 

Yes good point - and also when they rampage in the West they do not stop to ask their victims if they are Muslim.  I think the literal interpretation of old scripture is inevitably at least Medieval in outlook.  We had kings in the Middle Ages - they have had dictators now - maybe there's not much difference.  The idea that you can bomb people into democracy is clearly wrong.

 

 

[Brian]

59 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Yes good point - and also when they rampage in the West they do not stop to ask their victims if they are Muslim.  I think the literal interpretation of old scripture is inevitably at least Medieval in outlook.  We had kings in the Middle Ages - they have had dictators now - maybe there's not much difference.  The idea that you can bomb people into democracy is clearly wrong.

 

 

I'd go so far as to say trying to push people into any political/governmental structure is clearly wrong.

 

Don't push "democracy" -- inform about liberty.  Let people choose their own structures.

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, Brian said:

I'd go so far as to say trying to push people into any political/governmental structure is clearly wrong.

 

Don't push "democracy" -- inform about liberty.  Let people choose their own structures.

 

 

Inform them about liberty - yet they might say they prefer the 'security' of the will of Allah.

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Inform them about liberty - yet they might say they prefer the 'security' of the will of Allah.

Indeed.

 

And they are welcome to it, as long as it doesn't encroach upon my liberty.

 

Your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose, as the saying goes.

[Chang]

1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

 

Inform them about liberty - yet they might say they prefer the 'security' of the will of Allah.

 

The history of Western interference in the Middle East is a catalogue of disaster. We should have simply protected our borders and left well alone. Unfortunately that is the one thing politicians are incapable of - leaving things alone.

[Apech]

Just now, Chang said:

 

The history of Western interference in the Middle East is a catalogue of disaster. We should have simply protected our borders and left well alone. Unfortunately that is the one thing politicians are incapable of - leaving things alone.

 

 

Agreed - except that in terms of borders - we created them as well

[Chang]

6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Agreed - except that in terms of borders - we created them as well

 

We did indeed when we re-drew the maps after the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WW1. It is easy to be wise after the event but we appear not to have learned our lesson after all these years. 

[Marblehead]

And still the Kurds are in need of their own homeland.

 

[Apech]

22 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

And still the Kurds are in need of their own homeland.

 

 

 

Yes - I recall that when we created Iraq in 1918/9 there was an idea to also create a Kurdistan but it was resisted for some reason.  Big mistake.

 

 

[Brian]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Yes - I recall that when we created Iraq in 1918/9 there was an idea to also create a Kurdistan but it was resisted for some reason.  Big mistake.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Brian said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan

 

"The objection of the British to Kurdish self-rule sprang from the fear that success of an independent Kurdish area would tempt the two Arab areas of Baghdad and Basra to follow suit, hence endangering the direct British control over all Mesopotamia."

 

Ah! fully justified then