Not happy my 13 year 's class old had recruitment presentation from armed forces today

You have some very sensible posts jcscot.

It seems to have moved a long way from the OP.
I can never understand why people can't use what goes on at school as an interesting discussion with their DCs. There seems to be a tremendous fear that 'other people' will indoctrinate our DCs and that our DCs have to believe what we believe.
It starts at 5yrs with people telling them there is a God, when mummy and daddy have already told them there isn't a God (or vice versa)and moves on through other topics.
I certainly don't think the same as my mother, on a lot of things, and luckily she has never expected me to. I can remember having passionate anti views on the military when I was a teenager and having long arguments with my parents on that and all sorts of subjects-they livened up the meal time and were good hearted.I enjoyed them.

I think that you should bring up your DC to think for themselves. My eldest 2 DSs could see lots of advantages to joining the Forces, but my youngest wouldn't even entertain it for a minute.
I think that there should be much more career advice in school with all sorts of people coming into give talks, including the Forces. My DSs never joined, but I know that there are thriving cadet forces in our town and they, like the Scouts and Guides, do all sort of adventurous, life skill type things that are so good for young people. Lots are active members but don't go onto have a career in the Forces.(Therefore if the object was to recruit early on they were a dismal failure and so I doubt whether an short presentation at school is going to hoards flocking to join!)

I have faith in my DSs, that they think for themselves and are not easily led. I don't have any fear of them listening to other views and I don't believe that they have to agree with my views.

(I think that the Forces can offer a way out for disadvantaged youngsters with dead end jobs and no prospects-they can be the making of them).

"I don't understand that as an argument against implementing blanket asylum for those oppressed by Sharia law. Surely if Sharia law is the problem, then it doesn't matter if the people fleeing it are from Afghanistan or SA? If they are being oppressed and their human rights are being denied, why does it matter if the nation they are coming from is concerned with establishing Sharia in other countries or not?"

I'm not sure I put my point across clearly - I was trying to say that politics decides why we interfere with one country and not another, hence my comparing SA with Afghanistan. Why didn't we intervene in Rwanda and why are we not intervening in Darfur? I don't know.

Asylum and the granting of it is a distinctly separate issue to the foreign policy of deciding where we project our military and diplomatic power.

Asylum has always been granted on an individual basis and I don't understand why granting automatic asylum to someone just because they come from a Sharia state would prevent terrorist attacks in the West.

"Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what do the terrorists actually want?"

It isn't a stupid question at all - it's the fundamental question of why we went to war in the first place. In my understanding, there is a strand of Islamic belief that wants to impose Islam and Sharia law across the world - not by gradual conversion of people who are willing and want to be converted but by force. IIRC they talk of this as the Caliphate - the eventual position where we would all be living in an Islamic state. They can see no reason to negotiate with us, or reason with us because what we want - religious and societal freedom - is diametrically opposed to their desires. They're prepared to kill and die in that aim.

Perhaps I'm being simplistic and I am certain that there are other, more complex reasons as well - governements make these decisions, not individuals after all. I'm not certain that we (as only partially-informed citizens) can ever be 100% sure of what the terrorists want.

"But Saudi financially supports the imposition of Sharia law elsewhere!"

Yes it does, albeit indirectly. Again it comes down to politics - SA walks a rather tight line between not antagonising its neighbours and fellow Islamic states and supporting the West - another country that does the same would be Jordan.

Other countries have done the same. The USA allowed Noraid to campaign for funds for the IRA on USA soil.

"Isn't Osama bin Laden a Saudi? Where do you think hsi money comes from?"

Yes, he is a Saudi national and he comes from a rather influential and wealthy family who have, IIRC, disowned him.

His organisation is funded - like most terrorist organisations - from a variety of sources, some "legitimate" (for want of a better word) in the form of donations from indivduals and organisations and some criminal in nature (illegal arms training and the opium trade being two examples).

It should be remembered that Al Quaeda is not a single distinct group with set aims, but rather an umbrella organistion that covers all kinds of smaller politcal and terrorist groups with simliar but distinct aims. So, funding for one small pressure group can end up in Al Quaeds coffers without that being the direct intention of the donor.

The money trail for Islamic terrorism is one of the most complex and convoluted forensic accounting investigations we've ever seen.

"If we think what they do is so unacceptable, how come we are not offering blanket asylum visas to anyone subjected to sharia law? That I would support."

"To put it bluntly, the answer to that is politics. Countries other than Afghanistan have Sharia law (Saudi Arabia, for example). The difference is that, in the eyes of the West, SA is happy to leave other countries alone and does not seek the establishment of Sharia law in countries other than its own. The Taliban and other fundamentalist islamic organisations seek the establishment of Sharia law across the whole of the world."

I don't understand that as an argument against implementing blanket asylum for those oppressed by Sharia law. Surely if Sharia law is the problem, then it doesn't matter if the people fleeing it are from Afghanistan or SA? If they are being oppressed and their human rights are being denied, why does it matter if the nation they are coming from is concerned with establishing Sharia in other countries or not?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what do the terrorists actually want? They never talk about that on the news, except to 'destroy our way of life'. Is that really what they want? If it is, why do they want that so much?

But Saudi financially supports the imposition of Sharia law elsewhere!

Isn't Osama bin Laden a Saudi? Where do you think hsi money comes from?

well said jcscot.

IB these are terrorists. And more importantly, these are people who are prepared to die in the name of their cause taking innocent people with them. You can't reason with that. You can't reason with someone who will commit suicide for what they believe in because death holds no fear for them. Therefore the "kill or be killed" comment holds true in their case. If we don't kill them first, they will kill themselves and take us with them. And then what?

"If we think what they do is so unacceptable, how come we are not offering blanket asylum visas to anyone subjected to sharia law? That I would support. "

To put it bluntly, the answer to that is politics. Countries other than Afghanistan have Sharia law (Saudi Arabia, for example). The difference is that, in the eyes of the West, SA is happy to leave other countries alone and does not seek the establishment of Sharia law in countries other than its own. The Taliban and other fundamentalist islamic organisations seek the establishment of Sharia law across the whole of the world. Central to that aim is the idea of war to spread Islamic belief.

Of course, not all Islam is concerned with this ideal and I am not trying to tar eveyone with the same brush, I'm trying to draw a line between those of the Islamic faith who see it as possible to co-exist peacfully with non-Islamic faiths and societies and those who see it as neccessary that everyone become subject to Islamic law.

Like any religion, there is a huge spectrum of beliefs across Islam and the Taliban only represent one position on that spectrum. However, they hold a disproportionate amount of influence on our foreign policy because they choose to project their beliefs outside their own borders - they'r currently involved in conflict in Pakistan and have gained control of a sizeable part of the North of that country.

"What horrified me was the 'kill or be killed'. No, it's not as simple as that. If that is our attitude and we are not the 'primitive' ones, how the fuck can we expect them to think that their survival does not depend on them attacking us? "

Our attitude of "kill or be killed" is a direct response to Taliban attitude of "follow us or die". Their belief is that in attacking us, they do God's work because we are infidels and must die or be conquered - how can we reason with that?

"Do you think that will always be the way? Are wars, massacres and global conflicts inevitable for ever more? What do you think we would have to do to make this not the case, if there is indeed anything we could do?"

I think so, I'm afraid. With the exception of Iceland, those countries you mention are tiny enclaves within other countries in Europe who are (certainly in Monaco's case) protected by their larger neighbours. Iceland is remote country compared to the rest of Europe and it's location provides a natural defence.

If you look at mainland Europe, there have been major wars in every century (again, I'd be happy to stand corrected if anyone knows different) as nations have jostled for power time and again. The map of Europe has been redrawn many times due to war and conquest.

While it's unlikely that, say, Britain and France will ever fight a war against each other in the forseeable future, it's conceivable to see wars between some of the former Russian states in Eastern Europe. The Middle East is very unstable, we know. The desire of a nation to feel secure when it's in a vulnerable position can lead to conflict with neighbours - this can be seen in the stand-off between Israel and Palestine.

Human nature is bellicose and territorial - two vital ingredients in the making of wars.

It doesn't matter what I think of the Taliban. I don't like the way they behave, but we weren't that much better not very long ago. There are still a lot of things we do as a society that are pretty shit too.

If we think what they do is so unacceptable, how come we are not offering blanket asylum visas to anyone subjected to sharia law? That I would support.

What horrified me was the 'kill or be killed'. No, it's not as simple as that. If that is our attitude and we are not the 'primitive' ones, how the fuck can we expect them to think that their survival does not depend on them attacking us?

And then we are surprised when they commit acts of terrorism

"If anyone would like to come up with a better adjective I'd be interested."

Medieval was the adjective my husband used - they're able to use technology as and when it suits them. For example, the IEDs they're employing now are very sophisticated bits of kit indeed and they've proven that they can adapt and change their tactics to suit the enemy. Cave people, they are not but neither are they the most enlightened people in the world.

However, their brand of Islam is very backward-looking. I'm no religious expert, and if anyone who knows more about that aspect of their beliefs would care to comment and prove me wrong, I'd be happy to be corrected.

wannabe, lol @ "misunderstood"

why though. No education for women, no music fgs, if a woman is raped she is the guilty party and is executed, what is that if not primitive?

I am somewhat that there are people on here defending the taliban!

ib i'm about "primitive", but we're talking about the Taliban here. If anyone would like to come up with a better adjective I'd be interested.

there has been war and conflict since time began and there will always be war and conflict. Conflict is essentially a primitive instinct - even in the animal kingdom you will see conflict between prides of lions/monkeys/chimps/other animals, and even between different species ie a leopard will kill the cubs of a lion and vice versa because doing so ensures greater possibility for the survival of the leopard... etc. The difference with humans is that we have the inteligence to bring a new dimention into our conflict ie the gun and the bomb, and the result is that our conflict is perpitrated on a much wider scale. But the principal is the same.

Ib These are people who do not believe in music, do not allow girls or women to be educated, who execute women if they are raped - what would you call them then, misunderstood? You cannot change the mindset of people like that, if you are going to afghanistan to change the lives of the people there, you know that in order to do so you have to drive the taliban out by force, because they cannot be reasoned with. That's not horrible - it's a fact.

There is nothing to stop you putting your point of view forward

show your dc this here

Have a look on the forces websites yourself to see the diversity of occupations available.

But she was talking about the taliban and they are extremists- that's what they are! It's not a horrible comment ...it's the truth. You can't reason with terrorist organisations!

'These people are primitive in the extreme. They don't listen to reason - the answer is kill or be killed. It really is that simple.'

With attitudes like that, there is no question there will always be wars. What an absolutely horrible comment.

hottie in the unlikely even that Monaco or Andorra were invaded I'd imagine the French and Italian forces would be there like a shot (no pun intended). They don't need armed forces.

jcscot "Unfotunately, human nature is complicated and when the human nature becomes tied up with power and government and ideology, then fundamental goodness and morality can get lost in the mix - hence wars and massacres and global conflicts"

Do you think that will always be the way? Are wars, massacres and global conflicts inevitable for ever more? What do you think we would have to do to make this not the case, if there is indeed anything we could do?

wannaBe do you mean that if Iceland had an army then all their money wouldn't have been tied up in banking? Is that not to do with perhaps not having all your eggs in one basket, rather than having anything to do with not having an army?
And I don't know what the alternative is, but if we don't talk about alternatives, reasons, whys and hows then how will we ever make things better?

I often wonder if I'm BU for being so irritated that ds's school do not allow anything camo patterned on the basis that it is ?war-related? (I quote). Aside from the fact that naturalists and whatnot are likely to wear camoflage I wonder what message that sends about mummy/daddy?s job to the dc whose parents are in the Forces.
Anyway, I digress. YANBU for it worrying you but a career in the Navy (at least it wasn?t the Army) can be a darned good one and it?s good that your dc has had it flagged up as an option. I wouldn?t expect them to be showing all the terrible sides to a life in the Forces but if your dc shows an interest, you?re free to show them all the documentaries and news reports you like in order to help them to make an informed choice. I know I would.

and iceland is now practically bankrupt after the banking crisis.

Of course killing people is not the ideal, but what alternative is there? Sit down and have a cuppa with the talliban? These people are primitive in the extreme. They don't listen to reason - the answer is kill or be killed. It really is that simple.

OK, I've just done a quick google and...

Iceland doesn't have an army. It has the highest rate of literacy in the world.
Lichtenstein doesn't either, and they have spent all their defence money on education and have the 10th best education system in the world as well as one of the highest standards of living.
Others are Monaco or Andorra.

Apparently, common characteristics of these places are that they are wealthy, with a high standard of living, low crime rates and long life expectancies which is what happens when money is spent on education, hospitals, research facilities, social welfare and culture rather than war and destruction.

So these places are ripe for terrorism and invasion because they are undefended but it doesn't seem like anyone bothers them. Is that because they are minding their own business and are not invading or attacking innocent civillians of other countries, like we are, or is it because of another reason?

This is a genuine question by the way, I'm not trying to be facetious.

My FIL is involved in one of those charities and it is good. But I think the government gets off lightly.

I agree that more needs to be done regarding soldiers who have had to leave the army due to injury or being pyscholigically scarred, but the majority of people leaving the services after serving their time recieve great bonuses and a good pension, and are well supported back into civilian life.