Taliban attack in Pakistan.

[Colin C No.3]

Come home to roost?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Awful isn't it?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Come home to roost?

In what way? The Taliban have been murdering people in Pakistan for many years.

[Copps is Magic]

It's hard to know which group of jumped-up maniacs to pay attention to on the news at the moment. The taliban massacring school kids, the jihadists taking hostages in a cafe, Boko Haram kidnapping schoolgirls or the Mexican police massacring students in the woods. Seems like these terrorists now simply want to cause chaos, fear and simply provoke any kind of reaction. I have little clue what point they are trying to make anymore. Senseless. Maybe it's always been like this?

[River Don]

The Taliban, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram, I don't really see as really being any different, they're all following the same hard line Islamic belief.

Ultimately they'd all like to see the creation of a global Islamic caliphate.

[jucyberry]

Gutless bas**rds, not strong or brave enough to fight the solders so they go into the school and butcher their wives and children.

It takes a special kind of coward to murder children.

[RobTheRover]

Actually it appears to have take 6 of them, Juicy.

Utterly crazy (to us) but justified to them for the countless women and kids killed in their communities due to the Pakistani government taking a militarily hard line with Taliban tribes since June.  They've killed many kids of serving soldiers so that legitimises the target in their eyes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Beggars belief doesn't it. That's what happens when ideology gets put above basic morality and you start classing your enemy as sub-human. Kids get killed for the sins of the father.

And it's not just these savages. How many kids did Israel kill in Gaza this summer? Somewhere between 4-500 depending on who you believe.

And do we really give a shit?

[RobTheRover]

Its a pervasive menace, Billy.  The constant news coverage feeds both the ideology and the fear of the ideology.  What happened in Sydney (and to Lee Rigby) underlines this.  Deluded followers of a minority factional medieval ideal prepared to die to raise awareness of their aims.  Thats quite shocking in itself before the "western sensibilities" we hold process the barbarity of the actions they can justify to meet their aims.

If we had a straw poll on here of who feels less secure in this country now than they did 10 years ago, I'd suspect the answer would be a yes.  However, I also suspect we are no more at risk today (as individuals) than we have been at any point in the past 10 years.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Rob

I agree about the perception of risk.

I also reckon that you'd get the same response if you asked people if they wre more at risk today than 20 years ago (at the height of the IRA mainland bombing campaign) or 30 years ago (when the Cold War came terrifyingly close to becoming a Hot one with the Able Archer panic). 

People are generally not good at assessing risk. Especially when a media with papers and TV adverts to sell rams a "You are at risk so keep reading/watching" message down their throats.

[Glyn_Wigley]

People are generally not good at assessing risk. Especially when a media with papers and TV adverts to sell rams a "You are at risk so keep reading/watching" message down their throats.

I don't know if you've ever seen this, but it's well worth catching if you get the chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

[BobG]

The thing that saddens me, above absolutely everything else, is the fact that the wests' only response this past 40 years, ever since the Fatah airliner hijackings in Jordan, has been repression.  Violence and repression. There have been a few well meaning attempts to get to to the causes, Jimmy Carter had a go for example, but none of them has ever lasted long. No. we turn back to violence and repression. Since when has that ever won anything? It failed the Nazis right across Europe - which we applauded. It's failed the Israelis ever since 1947 - which we've done our level best to sweep under the carpet. It's failed the self appointed western global police since the 1970's - which we bemoan like f**k.

So we can't decide if we like the failure of repressive violence since we change our view depending upon circumstance. So we encourage these f**kwits to carry on since they know we can't bring ourselves to either change things for the better, or actually dish out some biolence back. We can't bring ourselves to do soemthing different can we? We can't even do something different about the sodding drug problem. Instead we prefer to let people live in squalor and die in penury rather than risk the f**king Daily Mail sounding off. Political cowardice of the highest order. And that's what we have with all these Islamic groups too. It's us that started the process of creating them. Us. Britain. Mr Balfour.

But the biggest crime of all happened in 2001. And that arsewipe George W Bush was the guilty man. He had the symptahy of the entire world on September 11th. He couold have used that to seek a worldwide consensus about dealing with the causes of terrorism. Do something about the poverty. Do something about the f**king Israelis. Do something about the military industrial response to every single threat that anyone in the west ever sees. But no. Instead he attacked a bankrupt and backward country led by idiots without the support of the locals and so created the perfect martyr for other idiots to focus on all over the world. And he did nothing, nowt, to fix the causes of the things he so decried. That was beyond crass. It was, and is, unforgiveable. Presidents of the USA are supposed to show leadership. They are supposed to lead the world to a better place. That's their belief system. And many US presidents have done exactly that. This cretin led us into a pit from which, right now, there does not seem to be any means of escape. All you have to do is glance at the papers, the TV, the radio, to see that the western world is hurtling, at great speed, to the intolerant political right. And we have already gravely damaged democracy in the process.

BobG

[River Don]

Generally I agree Bob but the Arab spring was to some extent met with a different response and so far the outcomes are not great.

Democracy for Egypt meant the election of an Islamic government which immediately started eroding civil liberties, setting them on the path to sharia law. Until the military decided to halt it.

Democracy for Libya has brought in a fragile government which finds itself under attack from Islamist forces intent on gaining what they lost through the ballot box through force.

Syria? We all know what's happened there.

The only flickering light of hope is Tunisia, which seems to be struggling but holding on.

While Islam holds within it a God given set of laws and an ideal for government, as far as I can see it will always struggle to reconcile itself with the western democratic model.

[IC1967]

Democracy is not the solution. It is a seriously flawed system that only works in a limited number of countries. Democracy gives power to the largest grouping in a country which then invariably gets abused in most situations. The largest grouping invariably look after themselves and the other groupings lose out which causes resentment and trouble.

The only solution for most countries in the world is benevolent dictatorship. Someone needs to be in power that runs things on a secular basis and keeps all the religious nutters in check. To improve matters these dictators should be encouraged to create rehabilitation centres where anyone with a belief in any kind of God is sent so they can be cured of their brainwashing. They would have to stay in these centres until they have seen the light. All state education should be geared up to stop any brainwashing of children. Religion would be banned and everything would be run on a secular basis. The world would be a much better place if people didn't believe in any kind of God.

This is the only practical solution. Anything else will fail miserably. Recent history has shown us that even evil secular dictators are better than democracy for most countries. I bet the vast majority of Iraqis would have Saddam back like a shot if they could turn the clock back.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-was-better-to-live-in-iraq-under-saddam-9532742.html

[BobG]

I agree with both of you, VD and 1967.

The Arab Spring did have a different mind set. But it originated in and was was led by Arabs. The Yanks had nothing to do with its inception. They played no leadership role.

And yes 1967. I've thought for aeons that the western insistence on 'democracy' is utterly counter productive. Indeed, even the Yanks agree with that - when it suits them. Just remember Allende and what happened to him. To that chap in Grenada who's name escapes me right now. To Diem of South Vietnam.  There's hundreds of examples if you look. But no one, not no one, ever even mentions those do they?

Democracy is a millstone around our necks. The snag, of corse, is that if we did accept that, it would be one huge step along the road of destroying democracy where it actually does have relevance. Like here.

BobG

[Yargo]

I find it educational to follow @JihadistJoe on twitter