To ask for a summary on the Tory v Labour stance on what to do about terrorism?

[Bearbehind]

This is looking like being the most critical issue of our times at the moment despite my thoughts that Brexit was the crux of this election.

Can anyone cut through the waffle and tell us what the 2 main parties are offering to do about extremists and terrorism?

Sober post sleep. Thanks.

I seriously doubt too that a man who supports and tolerates antisemitism, who threw in his lot with the likes of the PIRA, & Iranian terrorist proxies, who now pretends (lies) that all the time he was working for peace by talking to both sides, when he did no such thing - could / would ever be trusted.

All that would have bothered people enormously regardless of how comfortable and overflowing with milk and honey the nation might ever have been?

Corbyn is toxic to overwhelming maj' of the British public imo, because of the above and as soon as the party digest this, (which one would hope they will post Thurs') the sooner they can begin the rebuild of the shattered remains of the party.

I think tackling Islamist extremism needs a three pronged approach, one being ending Saudi funding of promoting of Wahhabist ideology, two being security and police work but the third being to tackle why so many young Muslims are becoming radicalised in our country.

I think this is probably the most difficult and I have absolutely no faith that the Labour party would have the will, never mind the ability, to tackle this. They are too wedded to identity politics and multiculturalism (as opposed to integration), and have in some areas (such as for years with the Rochdale and Rotherham grooming gangs) put political expediency ahead of trying to ensure that difficult issues involving the Muslim community are resolved.

that difficult issues involving the Muslim community are resolved

You'll need to elaborate here. What are you saying?

why so many young Muslims are becoming radicalised in our country.

There's 110 min' verses in the quran that call for the death of infidels.

make

Maybe she means that in the last few weeks we have had 3 terror attacks involving British Muslim men born and brought up here and yet hating everything Britain stands for.

That one fucking big problem don't you think? Maybe you don't and have another agenda though?

Link to BBC summary of Rotherham report by Professor Jay. Councillors dismissed reports for many years. Even after the Jay report didn't resign.

that difficult issues involving the Muslim community are resolved

You'll need to elaborate here. What are you saying?

I'll give three examples:

1. FGM which as I understand it is cultural rather than religious but is more common in Muslim communities than non-Muslim communities in the UK (please correct me if this is wrong). This issue is not being dealt with, hundreds of UK girls are still being mutilated either in the UK or elsewhere.

2. Grooming gangs. There are and have been grooming gangs operating in many cities in the UK. The vast majority of the perpetrators are Muslim, I think this is generally accepted to be the case. The police and other bodies are now tackling this issue and have brought or are bringing many cases to court. But it is well established (see official reports such as the Jay Report and the Casey Report) that grooming gangs were allowed to continue operating in Rochdale and Rotherham for many years after victims had tried to seek help, and that one of the reasons was failures of public bodies, including the police but also local authorities, social services etc, to respond adequately because of issues to do with the perpetrators ethnicity and religion, and fears of being called racist for taking the necessary actions.

3. Islamist extremism and its effects including terrorism. Islamist extremists are mainly from the Muslim community. There are a few converts, but not many and in any case once someone has converted, they are a Muslim.

I'm just watching the Jihadi Next Door documentary that featured one of the London attackers - it's worth a watch (it's on YouTube).

One of the stand out bits so far has been the 'ordinary' Muslims - a whole load of different people, not a pack - started calling out the radical ones who had set up a stall in the middle of the street.

The radical ones included a white British convert to Islam who was decrying the ordinary people as not being 'proper' Muslims like he was.
He was trying to fight & argue & shout over everyone calling them all kafir (sp?) and 'you're probably Shia kafir' etc.

If ever there was a representation of how Muslims are not a homogeneous group, and how 99.9999% of Muslims are just as angry as everyone else at the tiny, tiny minority of twisted wankers, that was it.

It was quite jarring to watch, just how contemptuous the radical lot are of other Muslims as well as the rest of us.

(I hope I've made sense, I'm not quite sure how to put it into words properly).

The mosque elders are regularly confronting the radicalised ones too - constantly.

Quite sad aswell that they guy they followed through the documentary didn't get into his version of Islam until his 20s when he met & was befriended by Omar Bakri (one of the well known salafist hate preachers).
He recounted how he was subjected to racist abuse growing up, and how he saw his parents subjected to it too, and saw them being spat on - seeing your mum or dad subjected to that sort of thing has a massive impact on a child - no wonder they're easy pickings for the groomers.

It's a massive, multi layered problem & there is no one right answer - the far right fascists are equally as problematic and young, disenfranchised white boys are easy pickings for those people too.

There is a really rotten undercurrent throughout Britain & it's been brushed under the carpet for too long.

and saw them being spat on - seeing your mum or dad subjected to that sort of thing has a massive impact on a child - no wonder they're easy pickings for the groomers.

Give over, every terrorist and group tries to justify its barbarism as a response to socio-economic injustice. Total BS. You only become a terrorist if you're a screwed-up psycho, or (in the case of muslim terrorists) taking stone age scripture literally, in the first place. That's actually an insult to all the decent people who suffer genuine oppression, injustice and bullying and aren't even remotely inspired to commit acts of mass murder and mayhem.

Maajid Nawaz responding to TM's statement with his Four-Point Plan To Defeat Islamist Terrorists

He makes the point, related to what you are saying Charmageddon , that ordinary Muslims need to be supported in isolating the extremist Islamists. He says naming the Islamist ideology is the first step to do this.

He said: "My four points are as follows: First off we need to be very clear here to name and shame the Islamist ideology.

Without us being being able to do so, we will be unable to isolate extremists from mainstream Muslim communities.We'll also be depriving reforming liberal Muslims from a lexicon that they require to isolate themselves from these extremists.

Islamist extremism is very different to Islamic. Islamic is a value judgement. It means something is endorsed by Islam, whereas Islamism is a political ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society.

Islamism, in other words, is theocracy. It's violent manifestation is jihadism. If we cannot talk about a problem with an accurate and correct lexicon, then we are simply nowhere near even beginning to address the ideological challenge that lies ahead of us.

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/maajid-nawaz/four-point-plan-to-defeat-islamist-terrorists/

They are too wedded to identity politics and multiculturalism (as opposed to integration), and have in some areas (such as for years with the Rochdale and Rotherham grooming gangs) put political expediency ahead of trying to ensure that difficult issues involving the Muslim community are resolved.

This, absolutely. I do not trust them to not put safe votes ahead of even the lives of young girls let alone the nation.

Goodness. Editorial in the Independent saying that freedom of movement in the EU has had its day.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/regardless-of-brexit-the-free-movement-of-european-people-is-coming-to-an-end-a7775956.html?amp

The sort of powers May is asking for on encryption are impossible in practice. Imagine having a backdoor into your bank accounts? That's basically what she's saying she wants. It's the equivalent of handing our bank accounts straight to Russian and Chinese hackers.

Both JC and DA voted in 2001 against banning muslin terror groups, including Al Queda - list here

Hansard July 2013

JC: The costs of NATO membership are considerable—probably far greater than those of membership of the European Union, which seems to excite massive debate on the Government Benches. NATO requires 2% of our gross national product to be spent on defence, and Members complain that other countries do not meet those demands. Presumably, NATO membership requires a level of expenditure that many countries simply cannot afford, yet they are required to make that expenditure and, for the most part, to buy those arms from the United States or approved suppliers that produce NATO-issue equipment. We must think far more seriously about why we are in NATO and what it is achieving.

JC: Al-Qaeda was founded by US trainers. What goes around comes around

Do you trust Maajid Nawaz Cross ? I certainly don't. His foundation's named after a man who wanted to impose a Global Muslim Caliphate .

Yes, I do nips. I have listened to and read a lot of what he says and his analysis and approach is spot on. Haris Rafiq, also of Quilliam, is also excellent.

I know lots of people distrust him. I don't know whether the "Quilliam" name story is true or why they chose it. The organisation has some other people on its board who I respect such as David Goodhart who wrote Road to Somewhere. He is a pretty astute guy.

The arguments against MN I have heard seem to stand on two main points. One is that Islam is completely unreformable and that there can never successfully be secular Muslims living in our society. I completely disagree with this. There is a huge problem in Islam at the moment and reform is needed urgently, but Christianity went through some pretty dark times and we now have secular Christians living happily with other religions and atheists.

The second strand seems to be that MN's plan is to lull us into a false sense of security that Islam can be reformed whilst the stealth takeover of the country by a caliphate continues. If he is doing this, he is doing it in a very strange and counterproductive way, as he is one of the people doing most to try to make people aware of the Islamist threat, and of how radicalisation of extremists is happening within our Muslim communities. So I really can't see that he is some sort of double agent.

Another criticism made is that he is ambitious. I'm sure he is, and very charismatic too. I don't have a problem with either of these traits.

I think there has been an issue up to now that almost anyone trying to speak up against Islamist extremism in this country has been subjected to some sort of character assassination campaign. I see Douglas Murray is the latest to be targeted. No one is perfect, and it is an incredibly difficult subject to discuss because of the wall of false notions of what equality and tolerance should actually mean that have been built up, but I hope this is starting to change.

Latest tweet from Maajid@MaajidNawaz

The left will (rightly) criticise DUP's anti-gay,anti-woman&creationist views, while they ally with similar factions among we (brown)Muslims

4:50 PM · Jun 9, 2017

YY to that tweet Cross.
Regressive left liberals: hypocrites one & all.

Follow up tweet from Maajid

Maajid‏*@MaajidNawaz*

Dear mainstream left, you dislike your Bible-belt, well ok... but then don't stand in liberal Muslims' way by allying with our Qur'an-belt

Found this on YouTube - Maajid Nawaz (amongst others) on The Big Question talking a lot of sense about the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=aalO6DYX3Gg