SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

daveangel
Posts: 17031
Joined: October 20th, 2003, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelCall for investigation of dual nationals serving in the IDF for war crimesthis sounds like a sensible plan.a sensible plan for Hamas? Perhaps. They will be relying on the ICC to only try the IDF and not Hamas for war crimes. Given the biased nature of the UN and other Global organizations, Hamas may win with their gamble.with 2200 Palestinians killed in the recent bout of aggression, most of them children and civilians I would certainly find for the Palestinians if I were on the judge or on the jury.
knowledge comes, wisdom lingers

daveangel
Posts: 17031
Joined: October 20th, 2003, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: tagomaQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.If you were not so hateful, I would probably think you are French.I don't hate anyone. I'm just stating facts. I know the truth hurts a lot. Sorry.you like "stating facts" until someone else starts to "state their facts". then you aren't so happy.Seriously, do you dispute any of the facts in my above comment?Seriously, do you believe anything you write ? I hope not and that you really are just trying to provoke a reaction.
knowledge comes, wisdom lingers

AnalyticalVega
Posts: 2260
Joined: January 16th, 2013, 5:03 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: tagomaQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.If you were not so hateful, I would probably think you are French.I don't hate anyone. I'm just stating facts. I know the truth hurts a lot. Sorry.you like "stating facts" until someone else starts to "state their facts". then you aren't so happy.Seriously, do you dispute any of the facts in my above comment?Seriously, do you believe anything you write ? I hope not and that you really are just trying to provoke a reaction.I would say the same thing about you!

somor
Topic Author
Posts: 565
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.the Brits then gave the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. They are so anti-Jewish.This fable is completely nonsense !The British's original intention was to diminish the French and Russian influence in the holy land, and to do so they had "used" the Jews. Just read one of the many biographies of Lord Palmerston.keep on dreaming.The British history in the ME is not so romantic as you pretend, but who am I to prevent you from fantasising the contrary. FYI Lord Palmerston was a very pragmatic figure. He knew well that the British power in the holy land could be advanced only by protecting and "importing" new Jews.I don't know understand why you want to drag us all down to your level of incomprehension of the simplest matters. I have never said that the British acted in a "romantic way" in the Middle East. In fact, perdious Albion was well and truly on form there. Please read up before you start posting.It seems that I have to inform a Brit of his country's history, a rather saddening state of affair. So starting from the mid-nineteen century:After the Napoleon's nasty crusade and the general decline of the Ottoman Empire a new wave of romanticism ignited in the Western dreams and suddenly all Western empires wanted to gain a firm foothold in the Holy Land. The French Republic advanced their power by protecting the Catholics (specifically the Franciscans of the Costudia di Terra Sancta), the Czarist Russia became the protectors of the Orthodox and the Ottomans were the protectors of all Muslims. Lord Palmerston and his evangelistic stepson-in-law the Earl of Shaftesbury were very keen to be the protectors of the Protestants, however, they were only few of them, hence they saw that the British power could be advanced by protecting the Jews. And in order to expand their power while diminishing the influence of other emperors they simply encourage Jews to emigrate to the Holy Land to a point that six years later the majority of the population in Jerusalem for example were Jews (1905). Now would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?
Last edited by somor on August 26th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daveangel
Posts: 17031
Joined: October 20th, 2003, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.the Brits then gave the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. They are so anti-Jewish.This fable is completely nonsense !The British's original intention was to diminish the French and Russian influence in the holy land, and to do so they had "used" the Jews. Just read one of the many biographies of Lord Palmerston.keep on dreaming.The British history in the ME is not so romantic as you pretend, but who am I to prevent you from fantasising the contrary. FYI Lord Palmerston was a very pragmatic figure. He knew well that the British power in the holy land could be advanced only by protecting and "importing" new Jews.I don't know understand why you want to drag us all down to your level of incomprehension of the simplest matters. I have never said that the British acted in a "romantic way" in the Middle East. In fact, perdious Albion was well and truly on form there. Please read up before you start posting.It seems that I have to inform a Brit of his country's history, a rather saddening state of affair. So starting from the mid-nineteen century:After the Napoleon's nasty crusade and the general decline of the Ottoman Empire a new wave of romanticism ignited in the Western dreams and suddenly all Western empires wanted to gain a firm foothold in the Holy Land. The French Republic advanced their power by protecting the Catholics (specifically the Franciscans of the Costudia di Terra Sancta), the Czarist Russia became the protectors of the Orthodox and the Ottomans were the protectors of all Muslims. Lord Palmerston and his evangelistic stepson-in-law the Earl of Shaftesbury were very keen to be the protectors of the Protestants, however, they were only few of them, hence they saw that the British power could be advanced by protecting the Jews. And in order to expand their power while diminishing the influence of other emperors they simply encourage Jews to emigrate to the Holy Land to a point that six years later the majority of the population in Jerusalem for example were Jews (1905). Now would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?Other than quoting verbatim from Sebag-Montefiore's Jerusalem tome, perhaps you should genuinely try to understand what is going on. Even if Mr Montefiore's claim is correct I don't see how this makes the British anti-semitic. But then again, you are a pretty special character with a rather large chip on your shoulder.
knowledge comes, wisdom lingers

daveangel
Posts: 17031
Joined: October 20th, 2003, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: tagomaQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.If you were not so hateful, I would probably think you are French.I don't hate anyone. I'm just stating facts. I know the truth hurts a lot. Sorry.you like "stating facts" until someone else starts to "state their facts". then you aren't so happy.Seriously, do you dispute any of the facts in my above comment?Seriously, do you believe anything you write ? I hope not and that you really are just trying to provoke a reaction.I would say the same thing about you!I believe most things I write.
knowledge comes, wisdom lingers

somor
Topic Author
Posts: 565
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.the Brits then gave the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. They are so anti-Jewish.This fable is completely nonsense !The British's original intention was to diminish the French and Russian influence in the holy land, and to do so they had "used" the Jews. Just read one of the many biographies of Lord Palmerston.keep on dreaming.The British history in the ME is not so romantic as you pretend, but who am I to prevent you from fantasising the contrary. FYI Lord Palmerston was a very pragmatic figure. He knew well that the British power in the holy land could be advanced only by protecting and "importing" new Jews.I don't know understand why you want to drag us all down to your level of incomprehension of the simplest matters. I have never said that the British acted in a "romantic way" in the Middle East. In fact, perdious Albion was well and truly on form there. Please read up before you start posting.It seems that I have to inform a Brit of his country's history, a rather saddening state of affair. So starting from the mid-nineteen century:After the Napoleon's nasty crusade and the general decline of the Ottoman Empire a new wave of romanticism ignited in the Western dreams and suddenly all Western empires wanted to gain a firm foothold in the Holy Land. The French Republic advanced their power by protecting the Catholics (specifically the Franciscans of the Costudia di Terra Sancta), the Czarist Russia became the protectors of the Orthodox and the Ottomans were the protectors of all Muslims. Lord Palmerston and his evangelistic stepson-in-law the Earl of Shaftesbury were very keen to be the protectors of the Protestants, however, they were only few of them, hence they saw that the British power could be advanced by protecting the Jews. And in order to expand their power while diminishing the influence of other emperors they simply encourage Jews to emigrate to the Holy Land to a point that six years later the majority of the population in Jerusalem for example were Jews (1905). Now would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?Other than quoting verbatim from Sebag-Montefiore's Jerusalem tome, perhaps you should genuinely try to understand what is going on. Even if Mr Montefiore's claim is correct I don't see how this makes the British anti-semitic. But then again, you are a pretty special character with a rather large chip on your shoulder.Don't get me wrong I have never accused all Brits or even the majority of Muslims in the UK for being anti-semitic/Israeli. It was Ernst Bevin in his tenure as the British foreign secretary who enforced a heartless blockage preventing from the remaining Jewish survivors of the Holocaust reaching their ancient homeland while, on the other hand, he continue supplying all kind of weapons and training to the armies of Egypt and the Transjordan Arab Legion under the commandership of no less than Lieutenant-General Sir John Glubb. Particularly known is his statement from Nov. 1947 in that:"if the Jews, with all their sufferings, want to get too much at the head of the queue, you have the danger of another antisemitic reaction through it all."So to make things clear, the Brits did the utmost of their power to prevent the Jews from having their own independence state and not vice versa as you apparently believe. Agreed?
Last edited by somor on August 26th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daveangel
Posts: 17031
Joined: October 20th, 2003, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.the Brits then gave the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. They are so anti-Jewish.This fable is completely nonsense !The British's original intention was to diminish the French and Russian influence in the holy land, and to do so they had "used" the Jews. Just read one of the many biographies of Lord Palmerston.keep on dreaming.The British history in the ME is not so romantic as you pretend, but who am I to prevent you from fantasising the contrary. FYI Lord Palmerston was a very pragmatic figure. He knew well that the British power in the holy land could be advanced only by protecting and "importing" new Jews.I don't know understand why you want to drag us all down to your level of incomprehension of the simplest matters. I have never said that the British acted in a "romantic way" in the Middle East. In fact, perdious Albion was well and truly on form there. Please read up before you start posting.It seems that I have to inform a Brit of his country's history, a rather saddening state of affair. So starting from the mid-nineteen century:After the Napoleon's nasty crusade and the general decline of the Ottoman Empire a new wave of romanticism ignited in the Western dreams and suddenly all Western empires wanted to gain a firm foothold in the Holy Land. The French Republic advanced their power by protecting the Catholics (specifically the Franciscans of the Costudia di Terra Sancta), the Czarist Russia became the protectors of the Orthodox and the Ottomans were the protectors of all Muslims. Lord Palmerston and his evangelistic stepson-in-law the Earl of Shaftesbury were very keen to be the protectors of the Protestants, however, they were only few of them, hence they saw that the British power could be advanced by protecting the Jews. And in order to expand their power while diminishing the influence of other emperors they simply encourage Jews to emigrate to the Holy Land to a point that six years later the majority of the population in Jerusalem for example were Jews (1905). Now would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?Other than quoting verbatim from Sebag-Montefiore's Jerusalem tome, perhaps you should genuinely try to understand what is going on. Even if Mr Montefiore's claim is correct I don't see how this makes the British anti-semitic. But then again, you are a pretty special character with a rather large chip on your shoulder.Don't get me wrong I have never accused all Brits or even the majority of Muslims in the UK for being anti-semitic/Israeli. It was Ernst Bevin in his tenure as the British foreign secretary who enforced a heartless blockage preventing from the remaining Jewish survivors of the Holocaust reaching their ancient homeland while, on the other hand, he continue supplying all kind of weapons and training to the armies of Egypt and the Transjordan Arab Legion under the commandership of no less than Lieutenant-General Sir John Glubb. Particularly known is his statement from Nov. 1947 in that:"if the Jews, with all their sufferings, want to get too much at the head of the queue, you have the danger of another antisemitic reaction through it all."So to make things clear, the Brits did the utmost of their power to prevent the Jews from having their own independence state and not vice versa as you apparently believe. Agreed?How is one to reconcile your earlier statement QuoteNow would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?with your current oneQuote Don't get me wrong I have never accused all Brits or even the majority of Muslims in the UK for being anti-semitic/Israeli. As for the rest of your argument, it is so powerful that I am struggling to pick myself up off the floor ... truly a knockout punch if there ever was one.btw - the gaps between where you are quoting verbatim from other sources and your writing are quite visible. When quoting, please describe as a quote. thanks
Last edited by daveangel on August 26th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
knowledge comes, wisdom lingers

somor
Topic Author
Posts: 565
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.the Brits then gave the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. They are so anti-Jewish.This fable is completely nonsense !The British's original intention was to diminish the French and Russian influence in the holy land, and to do so they had "used" the Jews. Just read one of the many biographies of Lord Palmerston.keep on dreaming.The British history in the ME is not so romantic as you pretend, but who am I to prevent you from fantasising the contrary. FYI Lord Palmerston was a very pragmatic figure. He knew well that the British power in the holy land could be advanced only by protecting and "importing" new Jews.I don't know understand why you want to drag us all down to your level of incomprehension of the simplest matters. I have never said that the British acted in a "romantic way" in the Middle East. In fact, perdious Albion was well and truly on form there. Please read up before you start posting.It seems that I have to inform a Brit of his country's history, a rather saddening state of affair. So starting from the mid-nineteen century:After the Napoleon's nasty crusade and the general decline of the Ottoman Empire a new wave of romanticism ignited in the Western dreams and suddenly all Western empires wanted to gain a firm foothold in the Holy Land. The French Republic advanced their power by protecting the Catholics (specifically the Franciscans of the Costudia di Terra Sancta), the Czarist Russia became the protectors of the Orthodox and the Ottomans were the protectors of all Muslims. Lord Palmerston and his evangelistic stepson-in-law the Earl of Shaftesbury were very keen to be the protectors of the Protestants, however, they were only few of them, hence they saw that the British power could be advanced by protecting the Jews. And in order to expand their power while diminishing the influence of other emperors they simply encourage Jews to emigrate to the Holy Land to a point that six years later the majority of the population in Jerusalem for example were Jews (1905). Now would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?Other than quoting verbatim from Sebag-Montefiore's Jerusalem tome, perhaps you should genuinely try to understand what is going on. Even if Mr Montefiore's claim is correct I don't see how this makes the British anti-semitic. But then again, you are a pretty special character with a rather large chip on your shoulder.Don't get me wrong I have never accused all Brits or even the majority of Muslims in the UK for being anti-semitic/Israeli. It was Ernst Bevin in his tenure as the British foreign secretary who enforced a heartless blockage preventing from the remaining Jewish survivors of the Holocaust reaching their ancient homeland while, on the other hand, he continue supplying all kind of weapons and training to the armies of Egypt and the Transjordan Arab Legion under the commandership of no less than Lieutenant-General Sir John Glubb. Particularly known is his statement from Nov. 1947 in that:"if the Jews, with all their sufferings, want to get too much at the head of the queue, you have the danger of another antisemitic reaction through it all."So to make things clear, the Brits did the utmost of their power to prevent the Jews from having their own independence state and not vice versa as you apparently believe. Agreed?How is one to reconcile your earlier statement QuoteNow would like me to go on informing how the Brits used the Jews to serve their own purposes till their sympathy slowly shifted toward the Arabs to the point it became purely anti-Semitic?with your current oneQuote Don't get me wrong I have never accused all Brits or even the majority of Muslims in the UK for being anti-semitic/Israeli. As for the rest of your argument, it is so powerful that I am struggling to pick myself up off the floor ... truly a knockout punch if there ever was one.I really lack the time to engage in irrelevant arguments and hair-splitting distinctions, sorry.Once again, still waiting for the evidence on which your assertion ("the Brits then gave the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine.") is based.

exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

I do not know the historical facts and consequently I cannot assess the arrow of arguments here, but maybe it is worth looking a bit wider and deeper into the geopolitics?On the inavitabilty of war between the West and Islamic State Edit: in such situations you have groupies-->sympathizers-->mercenaries-->terrorists? (the transformation of political romantics to criminals in the zero-dimensinal political space)
Last edited by exneratunrisk on August 26th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tagoma
Posts: 18363
Joined: February 21st, 2010, 12:58 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaQuoteOriginally posted by: tagomaQuoteOriginally posted by: AnalyticalVegaThe UK has had a history of favoring Muslims over Jews. During the British mandate they had strict quotas for Jewish immigration to Palestine. The British Mandate armed the Arabs while disarming Jews and preventing Jews fleeing the holocaust from immigrating to Palestine (currently called Israel and formerly called Israel 1,886 years ago). You reap what you sow.If you were not so hateful, I would probably think you are French.I don't hate anyone. I'm just stating facts. I know the truth hurts a lot. Sorry.you like "stating facts" until someone else starts to "state their facts". then you aren't so happy.Seriously, do you dispute any of the facts in my above comment?Seriously, do you believe anything you write ? I hope not and that you really are just trying to provoke a reaction.I would say the same thing about you!I believe most things I write.Besides, Seal seems to believe he can fly.
Last edited by tagoma on August 29th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: daveangelI believe most things I write.most $\ne$ allriddle me this, daveangel, what things have you written that even you did not believe ?

gardener3
Posts: 1496
Joined: April 5th, 2004, 3:25 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskI do not know the historical facts and consequently I cannot assess the arrow of arguments here, but maybe it is worth looking a bit wider and deeper into the geopolitics?On the inavitabilty of war between the West and Islamic State Edit: in such situations you have groupies-->sympathizers-->mercenaries-->terrorists? (the transformation of political romantics to criminals in the zero-dimensinal political space)You don't need to know history to assess that the arguments are nonsense. US is not fundamentally or ideologically opposed to an islamic state. Just google pictures of Obama bowing down before the head of another islamic state or Bush holding hands and kissing like teenage lovers. And enough with the nonsense of ISIS being the fourth reich and posing an existential threat to the US. First Iran was the fourth reich, then syria. So we helped some groups to fight the regime in syria, which are now according to the Hagel are posing a fundamental threat to US security. And, now there is talk of working with the old nazis, Syria and Iran, to eradicate the new nazis, the ISIS. This is becoming comical.

somor
Topic Author
Posts: 565
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskI do not know the historical facts and consequently I cannot assess the arrow of arguments here, but maybe it is worth looking a bit wider and deeper into the geopolitics?On the inavitabilty of war between the West and Islamic State Edit: in such situations you have groupies-->sympathizers-->mercenaries-->terrorists? (the transformation of political romantics to criminals in the zero-dimensinal political space)While I find myself agreeing with John Aziz's opinion on the link between economic depression and the creation of fertile ground for extreme political movements, but other than that, I fail to see any similarities concerning the rise of the Nazi party and its consolidation of power to the growth of radical Islamic movements in the UK. I think the extreme movements are bound to gather under the flag of one party with several strongholds - Islamic-style autonomous enclaves in which the Sharia law is effectively implemented as, for example, we see in practice in London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. Now that some of the well-trained ex-jihadists (~ 250 of them) are safe and sound in their own homes away from the battlefields, has anyone wondered why have they returned now, in the midst of the civil war, and not afterward? [Dread to think on Do-it-yourself-explosives vests in the tube or on a red bus...]

daveangel
Posts: 17031
Joined: October 20th, 2003, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: somorQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskI do not know the historical facts and consequently I cannot assess the arrow of arguments here, but maybe it is worth looking a bit wider and deeper into the geopolitics?On the inavitabilty of war between the West and Islamic State Edit: in such situations you have groupies-->sympathizers-->mercenaries-->terrorists? (the transformation of political romantics to criminals in the zero-dimensinal political space)While I find myself agreeing with John Aziz's opinion on the link between economic depression and the creation of fertile ground for extreme political movements, but other than that, I fail to see any similarities concerning the rise of the Nazi party and its consolidation of power to the growth of radical Islamic movements in the UK. I think the extreme movements are bound to gather under the flag of one party with several strongholds - Islamic-style autonomous enclaves in which the Sharia law is effectively implemented as, for example, we see in practice in London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. Now that some of the well-trained ex-jihadists (~ 250 of them) are safe and sound in their own homes away from the battlefields, has anyone wondered why have they returned now, in the midst of the civil war, and not afterward? [Dread to think on Do-it-yourself-explosives vests in the tube or on a red bus...]Have you been to Tower Hamlets or Waltham Forest ?
knowledge comes, wisdom lingers