Minute silence for London bombings.

[Jim44]

I was in a supermarket this morning when the PA announced the minute silence and invited everyone to respect it, should they wish to. Everyone in the row I was in participated except one guy who continued to carry on shopping. I was taken aback that this guy was of Asian appearance. I accept that it was probably quite innocent, that maybe he didn't understand what was happening or simply chose not to recognise the gesture, but it was thought provoking.

[Geo_1875]

I was in a supermarket this morning when the PA announced the minute silence and invited everyone to respect it, should they wish to. Everyone in the row I was in participated except one guy who continued to carry on shopping. I was taken aback that this guy was of Asian appearance. I accept that it was probably quite innocent, that maybe he didn't understand what was happening or simply chose not to recognise the gesture, but it was thought provoking.

But did he shop in silence?

I continued working during the minutes silence but didn't interfere with anybody who wished to observe it. I know others who continued phone calls during the minute but that's their choice.

[calumhibee1]

I was in a supermarket this morning when the PA announced the minute silence and invited everyone to respect it, should they wish to. Everyone in the row I was in participated except one guy who continued to carry on shopping. I was taken aback that this guy was of Asian appearance. I accept that it was probably quite innocent, that maybe he didn't understand what was happening or simply chose not to recognise the gesture, but it was thought provoking.

I didn't stop to respect it and I'm white. Not because I don't respect it, I was just busy and in a hurry to get things done. This guy could well have been the same or had a number of other reasons for not stopping. Also, and I'm not trying to be an @rse about it, what thoughts did it provoke?

[Jim44]

But did he shop in silence?

I continued working during the minutes silence but didn't interfere with anybody who wished to observe it. I know others who continued phone calls during the minute but that's their choice.


I didn't stop to respect it and I'm white. Not because I don't respect it, I was just busy and in a hurry to get things done. This guy could well have been the same or had a number of other reasons for not stopping. Also, and I'm not trying to be an @rse about it, what thoughts did it provoke?

I accept and understand what you are both saying and I said that it was probably quite matter of fact and innocent but I couldn't help registering the irony of that particular scenario.

[calumhibee1]

I accept and understand what you are both saying and I said that it was probably quite matter of fact and innocent but I couldn't help registering the irony of that particular scenario.

Fair enough but not sure I'd have had the same thoughts. By the same token I'm sure if they had a minutes silence in Charlestown (I don't know if they did or not) and a white man didn't stop to observe it I doubt many people would have had the same thoughts about him as you seem to have had about the Asian man.

[Jim44]

Fair enough but not sure I'd have had the same thoughts. By the same token I'm sure if they had a minutes silence in Charlestown (I don't know if they did or not) and a white man didn't stop to observe it I doubt many people would have had the same thoughts about him as you seem to have had about the Asian man.

So I suppose that my response unearthed some sort of deep-rooted racist condition which I was hitherto unaware of. :hmmm:

[Future17]

Fair enough but not sure I'd have had the same thoughts. By the same token I'm sure if they had a minutes silence in Charlestown (I don't know if they did or not) and a white man didn't stop to observe it I doubt many people would have had the same thoughts about him as you seem to have had about the Asian man.

That's an interesting statement. I would think a silence being held to mark a potentially racist crime not being observed by a white person (especially say in a predominantly black area) would draw a lot of attention. I'm not saying that's right, but I certainly think it would provoke some sort of reaction.

[Jim44]

That's an interesting statement. I would think a silence being held to mark a potentially racist crime not being observed by a white person (especially say in a predominantly black area) would draw a lot of attention. I'm not saying that's right, but I certainly think it would provoke some sort of reaction.

I'm relieved and glad to read this response as it was a similar to my own. I didn't want to respond personally to calumhibee's statement as I don't want to get into a drawn out debate about racism.

[Scouse Hibee]

Always remember my younger days as a store detective when guy had two Ralph Lauren shirts concealed in his jacket and was heading for the door closely followed by two of us with one store tec already outside waiting. The store tannoy announced a minutes silence,he stopped dead in his tracks and observed the silence, when the tannoy sounded again to signal the end of the silence he promplty left theshop and was nicked by three of us.

[DH1875]

Maybe the guy doesn't speak English and didn't understand or know what was going on.
Where I'm working today is very busy with the general public and at no time did they anounce or even hold a minutes silence.

[Future17]

Always remember my younger days as a store detective when guy had two Ralph Lauren shirts concealed in his jacket and was heading for the door closely followed by two of us with one store tec already outside waiting. The store tannoy announced a minutes silence,he stopped dead in his tracks and observed the silence, when the tannoy sounded again to signal the end of the silence he promplty left theshop and was nicked by three of us.

Did you tell him he had the right to remain silent? :greengrin

[Scouse Hibee]

Did you tell him he had the right to remain silent? :greengrin

Yes but he was squealing for some reason ;-)

[(((Fergus)))]

So I suppose that my response unearthed some sort of deep-rooted racist condition which I was hitherto unaware of. :hmmm:

Well if he was a muslim, there is, according to a 2006 poll for Channel 4's Dispatches, a 24% chance that he considered the bombings to be justified. The chance would be higher if he was under 24. Some 48% "strongly disagreed".

I don't think it's "racist" to be aware of the 24%+ provided you bear in mind the 48% who appreciate living here and the 66% who do not want to see sharia law introduced in the UK.

[oldbutdim]

I forgot all about it. But I remembered the Tunisian silence.
Thought it was more a London thing to be honest.
I'm glad we at least got the 7/7 the correct way around unlike the dafty Yanks with their 9/11 when it happened in September.

[Bristolhibby]

They announced it at work 15 minutes before but I then went into a meeting and the four of us all forgot.

We were all white, three blokes and a woman.

J

[--------]

I was in a supermarket this morning when the PA announced the minute silence and invited everyone to respect it, should they wish to. Everyone in the row I was in participated except one guy who continued to carry on shopping. I was taken aback that this guy was of Asian appearance. I accept that it was probably quite innocent, that maybe he didn't understand what was happening or simply chose not to recognise the gesture, but it was thought provoking.


I think the key words are "invited everyone to respect it, should they wish to".

Over the years I've become more and more uncomfortable with public shows of respect - silences, applause, whatever - for whatever particular event just happens to have happened 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years ago.

Cheap, easy, and in many cases I suspect utterly meaningless in the greater scheme of things. Remembrance services so easily become ceremonies of justification for sending yet another generation of young men and women (or at least their selected representatives) off to fight and die, or return home mutilated (but we won't think or talk about them because we might have to do something practical to help them, hm?) in the pointless wars of our present decade.

Someone decrees that we're having a minute's silence for someone deemed important or significant enough to merit it. How do they choose who's important or significant enough? Take a troll through Wikipedia? It sometimes seems like it.

The attack on the WTC on 9/11 was a deeply significant event for the people of the USA in a way that 7/7 was not for the people of the UK, maybe because we in the UK had seen many many bombs go off in our cities over the years and many many people, civilian and service, die, usually for no reason in any way relevant to them. We haven't sorted out the rights and wrongs of the struggle in NI which flowed over to the mainland with such heavy cost - I've heard and read a lot of rationalisation and self-justification from both sides, but not a lot of genuine reflection or remorse.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't remember and show respect, but I don't think the whole human anthill should stop for fear of offending the majority, nor that someone like your man in the supermarket necessarily is disrespecting the memory of the dead. I wonder how many of the folks who did stop and keep silence were aware of the anniversary when they entered the store - or when they woke up that morning? I had a lot on my mind yesterday, and I have to say I only became aware of the significance of the date when I saw the title of this thread. I don't think that means I disrespect the people who were murdered that day in any way.

The services where people who were caught up in the bombs that day mean something. The testimony of people like Emma Craig and Paul Dadge, diverse as it may be, means something. The memorial for the 52 who died means something.

A minute's silence in a supermarket or at a sports event? Not so sure about that, Jim, to be honest.

I liked Liverpool's story about the shoplifter. Not a lot of respect there, I think - more likely a desire not to make himself conspicuous by not joining in whatever tribute it was on the day?

I think in future I'll reserve to myself the right to join or not join whatever tribute I'm invited to 'respect' - until they make it compulsory, that is.

[steakbake]

I don't really see the point. If at the footie or whatever, of course I won't interrupt it. Be it on Nov 11th or 7/7, I won't be stopping in the street to stand still at an appointed time, like a robot on a production line.

Doesn't mean I don't think about the issues involved or whatever, it's just I don't see the point and think it is meaningless. Same with poppies. As for people's disapproval of that - couldn't give a monkey's really.

What would my silence change? Is it going to stop terrorism? Or does it serve to enforce some kind of community/collective activity that if you're not part of, you are by implication, against? Does it define people by dividing them into "them" and "us", by creating a self-satisfied and easily outraged "us" and excluding a "them"?

I don't like the tyranny of other peoples' observation.

[Future17]

Russell Brand's take on the Tunisian silence - having referred to it as "bull****" he was confronted by a friend of two of the victims:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/07/russell-brand-confronted-by-friend-of-tunisia-terror-attack-victim-after-he-said-the-minute-of-silence-was-bullsht-5285073/


I think in future I'll reserve to myself the right to join or not join whatever tribute I'm invited to 'respect' - until they make it compulsory, that is.

I think, if that day were ever to come, there would be a lot of people refusing to be silent regardless of what was being commemorated.

[liamh2202]

I don't really see the point. If at the footie or whatever, of course I won't interrupt it. Be it on Nov 11th or 7/7, I won't be stopping in the street to stand still at an appointed time, like a robot on a production line.

Doesn't mean I don't think about the issues involved or whatever, it's just I don't see the point and think it is meaningless. Same with poppies. As for people's disapproval of that - couldn't give a monkey's really.

What would my silence change? Is it going to stop terrorism? Or does it serve to enforce some kind of community/collective activity that if you're not part of, you are by implication, against? Does it define people by dividing them into "them" and "us", by creating a self-satisfied and easily outraged "us" and excluding a "them"?

I don't like the tyranny of other peoples' observation.

I think poppy's are a completely different argument as they are used as fundraising for the charity. I don't see it as an issue if someone doesn't want to wear one though

[Bristolhibby]

Russell Brand's take on the Tunisian silence - having referred to it as "bull****" he was confronted by a friend of two of the victims:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/07/russell-brand-confronted-by-friend-of-tunisia-terror-attack-victim-after-he-said-the-minute-of-silence-was-bullsht-5285073/



I think, if that day were ever to come, there would be a lot of people refusing to be silent regardless of what was being commemorated.

As someone who follows Russell Brand, it was obvious that the media were manipulating what he said. I watched his Trews (great vblog BTW) and got exactly what he was saying. Very powerful that someone who had recently lost friends in Tunisia and was no doubt wanting to give him an earful, once he had actually spoken to Brand he shook his hand and agreed with him!

Brand is the medias Number 1 target figure. Him and the back of the Independence media reporting has opened my eyes to how we as people are manipulated into doing what the powerful deem best for their interests.

J

[Colr]

I worked in Russell Square on 7/7. Have to say that I wasn't aware of the silence and can't recall if I didn't speak.

TBH there's rather a lot of these sliences these days. Pity Russell Brand can't be persuaded to stop talking, though.

[heretoday]

I don't really see the point. If at the footie or whatever, of course I won't interrupt it. Be it on Nov 11th or 7/7, I won't be stopping in the street to stand still at an appointed time, like a robot on a production line.

Doesn't mean I don't think about the issues involved or whatever, it's just I don't see the point and think it is meaningless. Same with poppies. As for people's disapproval of that - couldn't give a monkey's really.

What would my silence change? Is it going to stop terrorism? Or does it serve to enforce some kind of community/collective activity that if you're not part of, you are by implication, against? Does it define people by dividing them into "them" and "us", by creating a self-satisfied and easily outraged "us" and excluding a "them"?

I don't like the tyranny of other peoples' observation.

You're right. I'd rather people lobbied their government to stop getting involved in wars far away that spark off groups like ISIS or whatever.

[Sir David Gray]

You're right. I'd rather people lobbied their government to stop getting involved in wars far away that spark off groups like ISIS or whatever.

If only it was that simple.

Islamic State (and other like-minded groups) would love you to believe that this is the motivation for their actions.

The truth is that Islamic State is a wicked organisation, which is made up of thugs, murderers, sadists and rapists and their stated aim is to spread their vile message across the entire world. Their wish is to set up an Islamic caliphate in as many parts of the world that they can and they would be attempting to do this, regardless of any wars which were going on.

[Future17]

If only it was that simple.

Islamic State (and other like-minded groups) would love you to believe that this is the motivation for their actions.

The truth is that Islamic State is a wicked organisation, which is made up of thugs, murderers, sadists and rapists and their stated aim is to spread their vile message across the entire world. Their wish is to set up an Islamic caliphate in as many parts of the world that they can and they would be attempting to do this, regardless of any wars which were going on.

Whilst what you say is almost entirely true, you can't be denying that short-termism from UK/US governments and the ill-conceived and poorly executed military action which that brings makes it a lot easier for groups like IS to recruit?

Our Government's actions, carried out in all our names, have increased the membership and influence of these groups whilst, consequently, reducing the number of people left to oppose them in the countries in which they are operating.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Whilst what you say is almost entirely true, you can't be denying that short-termism from UK/US governments and the ill-conceived and poorly executed military action which that brings makes it a lot easier for groups like IS to recruit?

Our Government's actions, carried out in all our names, have increased the membership and influence of these groups whilst, consequently, reducing the number of people left to oppose them in the countries in which they are operating.

What would you suggest the long term aims of sensible thinking governments (wherever in the world they happen to be) should be instead?

[steakbake]

What would you suggest the long term aims of sensible thinking governments (wherever in the world they happen to be) should be instead?

Actively breaking the blockade on Gaza and fully recognising the state of Palestine would be a start. Not having invaded an impotent Iraq on the basis of a lie would have been a good plan. The UK as a lesser partner of the US keeps in place some brutal people - like the house of Saud or imposing crooks like Karzai on Afghanistan and as was, Al-Maliki in Iraq.

Basically, it goes much further back - the UK/US have been playing with fire in the Middle East for years, backing the wrong horse at pretty much every turn. Whatever the US does, we back unquestioningly but they are not a benign force in the world, serving the greater good. They have military bases in 120 of the 190-odd countries in the UN. They are a supremacist empire and an occupier and we are their cheerleaders. It is little wonder we are targets.

[Future17]

What would you suggest the long term aims of sensible thinking governments (wherever in the world they happen to be) should be instead?

Jeezo, what a question...how long have you got?

I suppose the key long term aim of an ideal government in my mind would be the peace and prosperity of all the citizens of the country. Whilst we're talking ideal situations, I'd like that aim to be achieved in a manner which makes it compatible with the same aim for all the other countries on Earth.

[Pretty Boy]

If only it was that simple.

Islamic State (and other like-minded groups) would love you to believe that this is the motivation for their actions.

The truth is that Islamic State is a wicked organisation, which is made up of thugs, murderers, sadists and rapists and their stated aim is to spread their vile message across the entire world. Their wish is to set up an Islamic caliphate in as many parts of the world that they can and they would be attempting to do this, regardless of any wars which were going on.

I think you're pretty much spot on in your assessment of the leadership of IS.

What I would argue is power vacuums like those left in Iraq and Syria, a breakdown of local government and much of society, a disenfranchised youth and often grinding poverty, much of which was caused by ill thought out Western interventions, provides a pretty fertile breeding ground for extreme ideologies and some decent propaganda for use in recruitment.

[steakbake]

I think you're pretty much spot on in your assessment of the leadership of IS.

What I would argue is power vacuums like those left in Iraq and Syria, a breakdown of local government and much of society, a disenfranchised youth and often grinding poverty, much of which was caused by ill thought out Western interventions, provides a pretty fertile breeding ground for extreme ideologies and some decent propaganda for use in recruitment.

Why people from here join IS is more complicated but they're a reaction to a certain set of circumstances.

[greenlex]

Not sure I comfortable with the minutes silence. I have respect and sympathy with the victims of this and all terrorist activity. The Tunisian victims were in my thoughts most of the week to be honest. Should I mark it with a public minutes silence? I not so sure and for the record I didn't mark it.

[Colr]

I think you're pretty much spot on in your assessment of the leadership of IS.

What I would argue is power vacuums like those left in Iraq and Syria, a breakdown of local government and much of society, a disenfranchised youth and often grinding poverty, much of which was caused by ill thought out Western interventions, provides a pretty fertile breeding ground for extreme ideologies and some decent propaganda for use in recruitment.

Some of the architects of IS were former Iraqi Baathists. If we hadn't got rid of Saddam, they would probably be stirring up the same **** for him. I can't beleive people think the Saddam regime was benign and should have been left in place.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Jeezo, what a question...how long have you got?

Exactly, there are no simple solutions or I'm sure they would've been found by now. A bit like the WMDs. ;-)

[Pretty Boy]

Some of the architects of IS were former Iraqi Baathists. If we hadn't got rid of Saddam, they would probably be stirring up the same **** for him. I can't beleive people think the Saddam regime was benign and should have been left in place.

As I said I agreed that the leadership/architects of IS could legitimately be regarded as evil, sadistic, rapists etc. Given the Ba'ath Party was secular I doubt they would be stirring up the same sort of '****', although I accept the more general point.

The removal of Saddam Hussein was ill thought out, that's not a defence of the regime or a belief it was benign. The planning for life after the Ba'ath Party seemed poorly conceived. There was either a fundamental misunderstanding of the deep sectarian divides in Iraqi society or a wilful decision to ignore them, I'm not really sure which is worse tbh.

Is Iraq or the middle east in a better place 12 years on from the invasion? Is it safer? More prosperous? More stable? I'd say the answer is a resounding no to every one.

[Sir David Gray]

Whilst what you say is almost entirely true, you can't be denying that short-termism from UK/US governments and the ill-conceived and poorly executed military action which that brings makes it a lot easier for groups like IS to recruit?

Our Government's actions, carried out in all our names, have increased the membership and influence of these groups whilst, consequently, reducing the number of people left to oppose them in the countries in which they are operating.

I'm not saying we're entirely blameless. I don't have any time for Saddam Hussein or his time in power of Iraq but he at least kept the country free of any Jihadist influence and organisations like Islamic State had little or no influence in the country while he was in power.

Islamic State in Iraq would be very unlikely to have happened if Saddam Hussein was still in power.


Actively breaking the blockade on Gaza and fully recognising the state of Palestine would be a start. Not having invaded an impotent Iraq on the basis of a lie would have been a good plan. The UK as a lesser partner of the US keeps in place some brutal people - like the house of Saud or imposing crooks like Karzai on Afghanistan and as was, Al-Maliki in Iraq.

Basically, it goes much further back - the UK/US have been playing with fire in the Middle East for years, backing the wrong horse at pretty much every turn. Whatever the US does, we back unquestioningly but they are not a benign force in the world, serving the greater good. They have military bases in 120 of the 190-odd countries in the UN. They are a supremacist empire and an occupier and we are their cheerleaders. It is little wonder we are targets.

I wondered when Israel would get the blame for this.


I think you're pretty much spot on in your assessment of the leadership of IS.

What I would argue is power vacuums like those left in Iraq and Syria, a breakdown of local government and much of society, a disenfranchised youth and often grinding poverty, much of which was caused by ill thought out Western interventions, provides a pretty fertile breeding ground for extreme ideologies and some decent propaganda for use in recruitment.

Islamic State's membership comes from further afield than just Iraq and Syria though. They have many supporters from countries such as the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, France and Germany. As I said before we do need to share the blame for what's happened but we should also accept that there is simply a sizeable number of Islamists who just hate the UK and other like-minded countries and who want to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate governed by their version of Sharia Law.


Not sure I comfortable with the minutes silence. I have respect and sympathy with the victims of this and all terrorist activity. The Tunisian victims were in my thoughts most of the week to be honest. Should I mark it with a public minutes silence? I not so sure and for the record I didn't mark it.

I observed the minute's silence last Friday from my hotel in Portugal. The main motivation for me being that I was remembering my fellow tourist, British people who were on holiday just like me and who never came home.


Some of the architects of IS were former Iraqi Baathists. If we hadn't got rid of Saddam, they would probably be stirring up the same **** for him. I can't beleive people think the Saddam regime was benign and should have been left in place.

I doubt very much that any IS members are former Baath party members. The Baath Party was a secular party that hated organisations such as Islamic State.

I had no time for the reign of Saddam Hussein but with the benefit of hindsight it was undoubtedly the lesser of two evils as far as the UK is concerned.

[steakbake]

Israel gets a special mention because it is a factor. I know people who for some reason, generally support Israel as the 'goodies' don't really like it. In 48, Palestinians were displaced to accommodate Israel. Ever since, Israel has been expanding for lebensraum, happily turfing out the Palestinians living there and allowing fundamentalist settlers to occupy the land. The US complain lightly in public but actually do nothing. Israel have been given top military hardware, financial backing and complicit diplomatic support. The 2mil Gazans are locked in an area roughly the size of East Lothian. No way in, no way out: sealed, with minimal supplies. Occasionally bombarded for having the audacity to build tunnels or as punishment for their pathetic rockets. Pro-Israelis don't really like that truth, but I suspect deep down they don't like it mentioned because it ought to embarrass them. I've beer heard anyone give a defence to i) Israel's continued expansion and ii) the blockade of Gaza.

Not that many of the Arab States are that sympathetic either. Egypt is complicit in it too. For ordinary people, all they see is injustice.

[Colr]

I'm not saying we're entirely blameless. I don't have any time for Saddam Hussein or his time in power of Iraq but he at least kept the country free of any Jihadist influence and organisations like Islamic State had little or no influence in the country while he was in power.

Islamic State in Iraq would be very unlikely to have happened if Saddam Hussein was still in power.



I wondered when Israel would get the blame for this.



Islamic State's membership comes from further afield than just Iraq and Syria though. They have many supporters from countries such as the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, France and Germany. As I said before we do need to share the blame for what's happened but we should also accept that there is simply a sizeable number of Islamists who just hate the UK and other like-minded countries and who want to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate governed by their version of Sharia Law.



I observed the minute's silence last Friday from my hotel in Portugal. The main motivation for me being that I was remembering my fellow tourist, British people who were on holiday just like me and who never came home.



I doubt very much that any IS members are former Baath party members. The Baath Party was a secular party that hated organisations such as Islamic State.

I had no time for the reign of Saddam Hussein but with the benefit of hindsight it was undoubtedly the lesser of two evils as far as the UK is concerned.

Its been in the UK press as well

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/baathists-behind-the-islamic-state.html#

[(((Fergus)))]

Israel gets a special mention because it is a factor. I know people who for some reason, generally support Israel as the 'goodies' don't really like it. In 48, Palestinians were displaced to accommodate Israel. Ever since, Israel has been expanding for lebensraum, happily turfing out the Palestinians living there and allowing fundamentalist settlers to occupy the land. The US complain lightly in public but actually do nothing. Israel have been given top military hardware, financial backing and complicit diplomatic support. The 2mil Gazans are locked in an area roughly the size of East Lothian. No way in, no way out: sealed, with minimal supplies. Occasionally bombarded for having the audacity to build tunnels or as punishment for their pathetic rockets. Pro-Israelis don't really like that truth, but I suspect deep down they don't like it mentioned because it ought to embarrass them. I've beer heard anyone give a defence to i) Israel's continued expansion and ii) the blockade of Gaza.

Not that many of the Arab States are that sympathetic either. Egypt is complicit in it too. For ordinary people, all they see is injustice.

[O/T]

False. For a start the Arabs hadn't started calling themselves "Palestinians" in 1948. Their leadership body was the Arab Higher Committee and their local militias were the Arab Liberation Army and the Army of the Holy War. The "Palestinian" Liberation Organisation didn't appear until 1964 and when it did so it met under a Jordanian flag and explicitly renounced all claims to 1) Gaza 2) the "West Bank" and 3) the Himmah Area.

In 1948, the Arabs attempted to destroy the de facto state the Jews had re-established over the previous 100 years (by entirely peaceful means, unlike the Arab conquest). The Arabs failed. Some Arabs fled for fear that the Jews would do to them what they wanted to do - and had done - to the Jews, decades and centuries before, and some were actively expelled for military reasons, e.g. in Lod, Ramleh and border areas. The fact that 20% of Arabs remained inside the Jewish held areas while almost 100% of Jews have been expelled from *ALL* Arab-ruled states from Morocco to the Gulf tells you who is interested in coexistence and who is not. The fact that the internally displaced Arabs in Palestine are STILL classed as refugees in WB and Gaza while all Jewish refugees from the Arab countries have been absorbed by Israel also tells an interesting story about national identity and unity.

Since 1967, Israel has actually vastly reduced the territory it holds, foolishly, yet you accuse it of expansionism??

Gaza? That used to be an open city and I know because I worked with two Gazans who commuted daily to Tel Aviv. So what changed? Israel suddenly decided it needed a lack of security on its southern border to undermine tourism and trade? Or the kumbaya left invited the terrorists back from Tunisia? Tough one.

Nor is the border locked, you can visit the COGAT website to see data on the numbers of trucks going in and out of Gaza and the numbers of civilians going to Israel for medical treatment or whatever - including, ludicrously, hamas family members. The EGYPTIAN border on the other hand is almost entirely sealed but, no, it's a Jewish blockade of Gaza...

"Occasionally bombarded for digging tunnels and shooting rockets". That must be incredibly easy to write when you are sitting comfortably in Scotland with no overhead threats other than seagull crap and no jihadists about to pop up through your floorboards and cut your head off. I'd love to see how you would react in such a situation. Seriously.

Those so-called pathetic rockets may not kill many Israelis - due to Israeli investment in civil defence - but their misfires sure as hell kill a lot of Gazans. You know, the people you supposedly care about. And whose "government" considers THEM to be ITS civil defence.

As for Israel's "continued expansion" (code for Jews living in Judea and Samaria), I'm afraid that I don't share your view that Jews and Jews only should be barred from buying property and living anywhere never mind in the homeland of the Jews. No one complains about Arab citizens of Israel living or running their businesses there. So why only Jews.

As for the "blockade of Gaza", there is no general blockade of Gaza as the COGAT figures show. If you mean the maritime blockade, Israel is required under international law to impose a full maritime blockade or none at all. With no blockade, there will be multiple Karine As delivering heavy Iranian weaponry to Gaza leading to a ****ing massive war in which there will not be room for the current niceties such as text messages and roof knocking. No doubt many "pro-Palestinians", very far away, would be prepared to make that sacrifice...

PS Apologies for "hijacking" this thread but this was one piece of ill-informed, regurgitated crap too many for me. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but if you are going to libel people - whether thorough malice or laziness - then you ****ing deserve it. Bye.

[.Sean.]

I'm not saying we're entirely blameless. I don't have any time for Saddam Hussein or his time in power of Iraq but he at least kept the country free of any Jihadist influence and organisations like Islamic State had little or no influence in the country while he was in power.

Islamic State in Iraq would be very unlikely to have happened if Saddam Hussein was still in power.



I wondered when Israel would get the blame for this.



Islamic State's membership comes from further afield than just Iraq and Syria though. They have many supporters from countries such as the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, France and Germany. As I said before we do need to share the blame for what's happened but we should also accept that there is simply a sizeable number of Islamists who just hate the UK and other like-minded countries and who want to turn the world into an Islamic caliphate governed by their version of Sharia Law.



I observed the minute's silence last Friday from my hotel in Portugal. The main motivation for me being that I was remembering my fellow tourist, British people who were on holiday just like me and who never came home.



I doubt very much that any IS members are former Baath party members. The Baath Party was a secular party that hated organisations such as Islamic State.

I had no time for the reign of Saddam Hussein but with the benefit of hindsight it was undoubtedly the lesser of two evils as far as the UK is concerned.
:agree:

At the he risk of sounding like a massive ignorant dick maybe Hussein had them on a leash for good reason.