It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I wouldnt care if I didn't think it would actually do more harm to our civilisation than it did to the jihadis. Once a society goes down the route you advocate it takes you to very dark places that it's hard to come back from.
Yeah I am based in the UK too Stag, the flip side to this is then they could just attack the outer cordon? Their really is no solution as these scumbags have no morals.
Need to seek them out and destroy them root and branch from every angle.
The current security procedures are just there to make the public feel better and the politicians look like they are doing something. Ultimately they are pointless as no matter how far you take the cordon back from the venue there's still going to be a queue somewhere and they will just detonate there.
That's assuming the security is effective of course. I went to Euro 2016 last year where France was supposedly on 'high alert' but despite there being a greater armed presence the quality of the pat down was pretty cursory. Especially when the people doing it are all clearly on minimum wage with a modicum of training. It wouldn't.
I was in India a couple of years ago and they had metal detectors at every shopping centre and big hotel. Did I feel safer? Not really because they are inevitably manned by one or two bored looking blokes who would provide only the briefest resistance to a determined attack.
I suppose the obvious solution is for all to be allowed to carry guns for self defence like in America? That seems to work pretty well.
Careful mate I'm in danger of agreeing with you there.
@RogueAgent The plethora of targets available to these vermin is inexhaustible. Because of recent events, most folks attention has become focused on pop concerts and such, when in actual fact, anywhere there is a concentration of people is a potential target - a city centre street for example. Areas which are impossible to police against any attack.
According to recent reports there are an estimated 25,000 potential Jihadist terrorists in the UK, we simply do not have the resources available to effectively monitor them. There is little point in expanding the police/security services in an attempt to meet this threat, because, even on a four to one case basis (which is still not enough) you would need to recruit many more officers than any government would sanction and/or be able to afford.
As far as I'm concerned, those who seek to do us harm see our civil liberties as weaknesses, weaknesses to be exploited. They are our enemies, they are actively seeking to attack us, so why not remove them from the loop before they have chance to strike again.?
Yep, çause it's always better to be shot by your drunk neighbour who thinks you're cheating with his wife then risk the chance of beeing a victim of a terrorist attack. And when would you shoot this self-exploding person? when he pushes his button?
The call here to 'fight Islam' misses the point that these 'Islamic fighters' as they call themselves have a very specific background. You want to fight Islam? Go ahaid and start in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, etc. etc. All those countries no suicide bombers come from. Considering Indonesia: it's only Sumatra where they practice sharia law and that part of the country has tried to become independent for the last 500 years or so.
All in all, you want these f**kers to win, sure, go for the big picture. 1.5 billion muslims to go.
When you look at the background of these people, they all come from backward cultures in the middle east where poor people are kept stupid (with the help of Islamic doctrine) for an elite to use our oil dollars, euro's and pounds. Our meddling there has little to do with huminatrian care, more with strategic power play where recently the Russians started to pick a piece of the pie as well.
So there are two solutions: occupy the whole area, start teaching people and give them at least certainty of life (food, drink, shelter). It means a project for the next 70 odd years and you'll have to do some proper fighting first, but like Germany & Japan after WWII at least they'll get a chance to become normal countries.
Or pull back, stop supporting their elite (yep, that means no more oil from there) and wait to see what happens. They'll keep hating us for some time and as in scenario 1 we won't get rid of them that easily, but you'll take away the roots of their discontent.
For that has little to do with religion, but everything with power play.
Pity the Americans just funded terrorism for the next 20 odd years..http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html
Always good to get different perspectives.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/29/vladimir-putin-is-bigger-threat-than-isis-john-mccain-says
My own personal view (perhaps naive) is that Russia is still more of a potential ally than a major menace. Yes Putin has done 'bad stuff' but a lot of that was after massive provocation from the West.
Either way, I really think we need to get the Islamists in perspective. They represent a serious threat, but in world historical terms I'm not sure they really warrant all the fear and media attention they get. When they act it's usually horrific and understandably grabs headlines (exactly what they want), but when you step back and think about it, they are weak, pathetic criminals. Most of them are miserable losers who've been involved in gangs and street crime and are looking for ways to lash out at a world they hate. They are not in a position to really threaten our way of life. Hitler was probably the last real threat in that sense.
The only ones who can change our way of life at the moment are ourselves, if we cave into these pathetic criminals and respond in the way they want us to - i.e. a heavy handed response and by persecuting the wider Muslim community and helping them with their recruiting.
Whenever he runs his mouth, just ask yourself whether it results in increased military expenditures or arms sales. Nearly 100% of the time, it does.
But putting aside his undoubted partisanship, it's still interesting that a senior US defence policy 'expert' is so openly saying that ISIS is not actually necessarily the existential threat they themselves like to imagine, and which our media are so happy to cast them as.
Western govts have schizophrenically vascillated between ignoring & dismissing the threat to prevaricating after an attack.
As mentioned though. McCain is a hack for the defense and intelligence establishment, posing as a 'straight talker'. His game has been known for some time.
Blowing up teenage girls at a pop concert may be horrific, evil and guaranteed to grab headlines around the world, but it's not really the kind of thing that brings down entire civilisations.
Basically this is the modus operandi of the Islamonutters. They deliberately choose targets that will maximise and leverage their publicity and generate fear, anger, hate and (they hope) some over the top military response where the West ends up killing lots of Muslim civilians and thereby feeding the cycle of conflict.
Their actual ability to undertake a serious military style assault that would genuinely threaten the west in an existential sense is close to zero.
Their only and best hope is to keep on provoking us until they goad us into another Iraq style blunder where we commit ground troops to Unwinnable quasi-colonial escapades in Muslim majority countries.
This was exactly what Bin Laden hoped to achieve when he masterminded 9/11 and hit the jackpot big time when GW Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld took the jihadi bait.
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2010/03/terrorism-vulnerabilities-to-the-water-supply-and-the-role-of-the-consumer.html
You've hit the nail on the head @patb , it is only a question of time before the terrorists ratchet up their attacks. Without going into specifics, I remember reading a report about this very subject a few years ago.
The terrorists have already demonstrated a willingness to employ chemical weapons in both Syria and Iraq, they would have no hesitation in using such devices against 'infidels'.
FYI as far as our nuclear sites are concerned, it is a little known fact that they are policed by their own non territorial police force. The Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a specialised body of fully warranted officers who are all routinely armed as part of their duties and whose job is to protect our atomic power plants and such. It may be perhaps something for the incoming government to consider, that an expansion of such police forces is made to cover our strategic infrastructure. This could be effectively achieved in the short term by the deployment of regular/reserve military units to said sites.
I wonder just how far the apologists/hand wringers are prepared to let the terrorists go before they finally realise that they need to be stopped once and for all, until then all we can do is stand by for further attacks.
plus recruitment is an issue. Such is the sensitivity of "equal ops" etc that human resources, will not go anywhere near a risk assesment re the background of a job applicant. If our security guys could not spot him as a future bomber, then what hope the HR dept of a water company? If he had applied for a job as a cleaner, trainiee plumber etc, I do wonder what security checks were done and, given their limitations, would they have any chance of uncovering the real person he was. Plus, of course, so many tasks are subcontracted out to the lowest bidder.
IMHO these are the risks that we should be openly talking about and tightening up but, as usual, the agenda is somewhere else.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jan/20/jihadis-next-door-review-channel-4-isis-abu-rumaysah
Has anyone seen this film (it's currently on Neflix)? Both chilling and hilarious at the same time, if that's possible. One of them is a London bus driver but I'm sure the victims of Russell Square would agree it's more important TfL doesn't discriminate than vet their staff.
@patb's last point is particularly pertinent. Unless you are applying for the security services or the police I doubt even the most cursory checks are made on your background so working for the water board or a train company going to be even less. On the contrary because of the need to hit their diversity quotas they are probably more likely to give someone the job based only on him ticking the right box.
In the spirit of compromise - see that @Getafix? Try seeing how much compromise you get out of the average Muslim when you sketch a stick drawing of The Prophet, PBUH (you have to write that or they put your windows through) in Pictionary - I'm prepared to pull back on my black ops shooting in back alleys policy (not that it's not a sound policy) if we can say there are some jobs where we just can't take the risk of hiring Muslims? Inclusivity and all that bullshit fine up to a point but for jobs in the nuclear industry, airport security, critical infrastructure sorry but it's a no.
If you want to call me anti Islamic fine; I'm really past caring. Until someone grasps the nettle and stops pussy footing around with terms like 'extremists' and 'radicalised' as if these are ills that affect society equally and it's just some kind of statistical blip that they are always Muslim we'll get nowhere. Not saying all Muslims are evil, of course not. That would be patently ridiculous. But it is just as ridiculous to ignore the fact that 99% of terrorists are Muslim.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. But the ruling classes are so betrothen to their multicultural project they will never do that and so we just continue bumbling along raising the threat level and having armed soldiers at airports for a few weeks and then go back to normal for a month until the next attack.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results and that's all the government has in it's locker it seems.
A short story. Entry to the police via the normal channels is an exhaustive process, from application to acceptance is usually around six months. Detailed background checks are made against both the applicant and his/her immediate family and friends. This includes home visits. On one occasion I am aware of (though I'm sure there will be more instances) one particular force was seen to be under-performing on its diversity targets. They then had an application from an Asian gentleman (the only application they received), such was their need to be seen to go some way to meeting their target, the force in question sped up the process in that instance. Instead of the six month norm, from application to acceptance took this particular candidate two weeks. Yes - two weeks! Now I don't know the specifics of this particular officer, whether or not he is still serving, or indeed if he eventually met the minimum requirements of serving officers, but the story demonstrates the willingness to cut corners, even in positions where those involved are often party to highly sensitive information, in order to feed the PC monster.
I have often wondered if MI5/6 follow similar protocols/corner cutting when recruiting staff. I would imagine they are bound by the same diversity legislation as everyone else?
PS see below, we cant even run a tribunal for some teachers properly....
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/30/trojan-horse-tribunal-five-birmingham-teachers-islam
As I said above, claiming these guys represent 'islam' is playing into their hands. Islam is far, far bigger then just the war-torn mideaval countries where these idiots come from. They WANT to be representatives of the whole Islam. Not that I'm a fan of any religion, but I want to fight these guys effectively.
For one western countries should stop Islamic states (yes, looking at you Saoudi-Arabia!) to fund mosques in the West. If people here want Mosques, they can work for it themselves. Also, preachers should be born and raised, and tought(!!!!) in the country they want to preach in. Preachers from other countries are not welcome, anyone learning his skills (never her) in a madrassa in the middle east or Sumatra (known areas of extremism) should not be allowed (back) into the country. not even as a tourist.
I don't believe in a multicultural society which allows for different ground rules. Those rules are there for a reason.
I think, if you put these two simple rules in place, you'll find far less people will be inclined to attack here in the West.
Manchester?
Exactly. Let's get over this misnomer that this scum are foreigners and immigrants dishing out revenge for the West's crimes against their countries.
In the most notable UK terror attacks we see the following makeup:
7/7: 3 bombers were born here of Pakistani heritage and one moved here aged 5 from Jamaica (a country well known for being bombed to buggery by western imperialists).
Lee Rigby: One born here and the other so far as I can tell also born here (although a 5 min google not totally clear - nonetheless lived here from an early age) to Nigerian, Christian parents (another country the west is constantly bombing into oblivion).
Westminster: Born here (Google not particularly clear on his heritage. Mother Janet Elms could be British father Philip Ajao potentially not).
Manchester: Born here to Libyans granted asylum from Gaddafi.
So in all cases their first allegiance should be to this country or at a stretch the countries of their heritage: Pakistan (yes historically they can have a gripe over the partitioning of India but notthing recently), Jamaica and Nigeria (the ususal ex colonial whinges but hardly that we are committing atrocities) and Libya (a country his parents escaped from and were given safe harbour and we welcomed them in).
Yet seemingly inexplicably they have a gripe with the west over perceived injustices in countries such as Iraq and Syria they have no connection with and in many cases have never even visited. The only link is Islam and their shared 'Muslim brotherhood'.
It's like a Bolivian blowing himself up outside Big Ben in solidarity with his fellow South American's struggle to reclaim the Falklands or me blowing myself up because someone invaded Belgium (we have similar cultures - you like your chips thin and with mayo I prefer mine fatter with vinegar - but we're brothers in chip eating and any attack on Belgium and its culture would naturally spur me to fight to the death).
Once again the buck stops at Islam because without that binding factor what affinity would a 19 year born in Jamaica and brought up in Aylesbury possibly have with Syria or Iraq?
As I've said before, I believe it's important at this time to separate the desire (and need) to isolate would be terrorists, and the broader discussion on the role of religion in society. You will not get the support of the majority of the population (Muslim and non-Muslim liberals as well) if you take on Islam. You will only create a wider backlash and lose support from the community that is much needed at this time.
I agree with your point re other religions and many have gone through phases of openly using violence to acheive their aims. So why is it such a stretch to suggest that, at this point in history, it is Islam that is going through this stage.
re your last point, the issue of community cohesion at any cost? So just ignore whats in front if us and keep doing nothing in an attempt not to upset people. Plus there is evidence that the communithy does want action. Look at the opinion polls re faith schools for example. Survey after survery shows that people are against faith schools but politicians refuse to take action as they refuse to take on the power of organised religion (and the Cons want to give more powers re selection to faith schools - a move that 80% of "the community" is against.
Last point (for now), the community does not want to see its children blown to pieces. Are more lives worth sacrificing in the name of community relations/cohesion? To use conhesion as leveagre for softer action implies we have that cohesion now. I am not sure that cohesion is the word to use re the relationship between Islam and wider society. It is the vey fact that there is a lack of cohesion and integration IMHO that is a major cause.