Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 96
  1. #1
    ENT
    ENT is offline
    god
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bangladesh
    Posts
    28,220

    'Twice as Many' British Muslims Fighting for ISIS as UK Armed Forces




    A still from the ISIS video featuring Cardiff students Reyaad Khan, 20, Nasser Muthana, also 20, and his younger brother Aseel, 17. web


    There are now more than twice as many British Muslims fighting for Islamic State than there are serving in the British armed forces, according to a British Member of Parliament (MP).

    Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Perry Barr in Birmingham, estimates that at least 1,500 young British Muslims have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria in the last three years.

    Mahmood told Newsweek that this figure had been building since the start of the Syrian conflict: "If you look across the whole of the country, and the various communities involved, 500 going over each year would be a conservative estimate.”

    According to the Ministry of Defence, there are only around 600 British Muslims currently serving in the Armed Forces,

    making up approximately around 0.4% of total personnel.

    4.3% of the British population are Muslim.

    The UK Foreign Office said that they believe over 400 individuals have travelled to Syria since the uprising began, but said that they could not give exact numbers.

    However Mahmood described such low estimates as “nonsense” and said that the British government was failing to deal with the problem of home-grown extremists.

    “We’ve not concentrated on the prevention work, we haven’t invested enough in de-radicalisation. It’s tragic, somebody’s got to wake up to it.”

    The role of British jihadists fighting in the Middle East has been brought into sharp focus after Islamic State released a video showing the apparent beheading of US journalist James Foley by a masked jihadist who spoke with a British accent.

    08_19_JamesFoley_2 James Foley at work in Izaa district in Aleppo, Syria, Sep. 2012. Nicole Tung/AFP/Getty/Newscom

    In June, three militants involved in an ISIS propaganda video were identified as Cardiff students Reyaad Khan, 20, Nasser Muthana, also 20, and his younger brother Aseel, 17.

    Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi last week told Channel 4 news that a Kurdish leader told him that Islamic State fighters in Iraq had been carrying a Liverpool FC season ticket and a gym card from Ealing in London. He estimated the number of Britons fighting for Islamic State at as many as 700.

    Ghaffar Hussain of anti-radicalization charity the Quilliam Foundation argued that the number of British Muslims being drawn to Islamic State and other organisations meant that the UK was “definitely” losing the fight against radical extremism.

    “There are an unacceptable number of Britons fighting for jihadist forces over the world,” Hussain told Newsweek.

    “There are things the government can do to prevent this of course,” Hussain says. “There needs to be a greater effort in the way of civil society initiatives that discredit jihadist organisations in the UK and promote liberal democratic values.”

    Islamic States militants’ recruitment campaign has overtaken Al-Qaeda in its effectiveness online, targeting primarily young muslims, the Quilliam Foundation told Newsweek.

    Their use of the internet is unlike anything we have seen before,” Charlie Cooper of the Quilliam Foundation said.

    “Social media applications like Facebook and Twitter act as a facilitator to connect young radicalized Britons with jihadists in Syria and Iraq.”

    Islamic State have so far run a very successful campaign of using public forums such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, whilst avoiding detection by authorities, with Quilliam reporting Islamic State supporters share resources on how to remain under the radar of the law.

    Responding to the Islamic State video earlier today, UK-based radical Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary who is a vocal supporter of establishing a Caliphate under Islamic Sharia Law told digital radio station Fubar Radio that “it’s not important if it’s a British person carrying out the execution because you’re Muslim first and British second”.


    A Home Office spokesperson told Newsweek that the British government is aware of the threat of Islamic State recruitment campaigns in the UK, insisting “the police and security services are actively working to detect and disrupt terrorist threats. People seeking to travel to engage in terrorist activity in Syria or Iraq should be in no doubt we will take the strongest possible action to protect our national security, including prosecuting those who break the law.

    "We also have a wide range of powers at our disposal to disrupt travel and manage the risk posed by returnees," the spokesperson said.

    The Ministry of Defence did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request for comment.
    http://www.newsweek.com/twice-many-b...-forces-265865

  2. #2
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,513
    Well if any of them ever fight against British forces they should be considered traitors and stripped of their citizen rights to welfare or any type of Govt aid or service and if they weren't born in Britain they should be stripped of citizenship and est packing back to where they came from.
    "In my professional assessment as an intelligence officer, Trump has a reflexive, defensive, monumentally narcissistic personality, for whom the facts and national interest are irrelevant, and the only thing that counts is whatever gives personal advantage and directs attention to himself."

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by ENT
    Perry Barr in Birmingham, estimates that at least 1,500 young British Muslims have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria in the last three years.
    from what source is perry barr getting the data to provide us with his "estimate"?

    quite frankly, this strikes me as little more than garden variety islamophobia.

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat
    pseudolus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:21 AM
    Location
    On the range
    Posts
    17,612
    Perry Barr is a Place .... in Birmingham....

  5. #5
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,042
    Perry Barr is a Place .... in Birmingham....
    OK, sorry...misread it.

    so.....i wonder where is Khalid Mahmood getting the data for his estimates.

    doesn't that number of 1500 seem absurdly high to anyone else?

  6. #6
    Custom user Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Behind a rhododendron bush
    Posts
    17,580
    Speaking with a British accent doesn't automatically make somebody British. I have heard plenty of foreigners speaking English with British accents and a few British people speaking with non-British accents.

  7. #7
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna
    Speaking with a British accent doesn't automatically make somebody British. I have heard plenty of foreigners speaking English with British accents
    ding, ding, ding!

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    04-09-2019 @ 05:06 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    30,807
    Of course, when our enlightened governments came out in support of al-Nusra in Syria, they opened the gates for this. Enjoy the schadenfreude.

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat
    9999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    31-05-2018 @ 07:54 PM
    Location
    Hating but living in the 3rd world
    Posts
    5,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Koojo
    Well if any of them ever fight against British forces they should be considered traitors and stripped of their citizen rights to welfare or any type of Govt aid or service and if they weren't born in Britain they should be stripped of citizenship and est packing back to where they came from.
    __________________
    Why not just execute them for treason and be done with it.

  10. #10
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,513
    Quote Originally Posted by 9999 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koojo
    Well if any of them ever fight against British forces they should be considered traitors and stripped of their citizen rights to welfare or any type of Govt aid or service and if they weren't born in Britain they should be stripped of citizenship and est packing back to where they came from.
    __________________
    Why not just execute them for treason and be done with it.
    What an excellent idea, is that a thing? Can they do that?
    That'd be wonderful.
    If the Brits ever get involved in this scuffle and they take prisoners from the opposing side of a battle and they turn out to be British, a bullet to the head. No questions asked, no trial, nothing.
    Last edited by Cujo; 21-08-2014 at 10:23 AM.

  11. #11
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    04-09-2019 @ 05:06 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    30,807
    Can you execute the Brit government for treason?

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat
    The Ghost Of The Moog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    26-08-2017 @ 09:53 PM
    Posts
    5,626
    I am not clear why the UK and USA need to fight ISIS.

    Shouldn't some opposing faction of Islam be fighting them, could be Saudi Arabia or Iran.

    This is a civil war of apostates.

    One team will win, if that is the ISIS caliphate, then having had the USA and UK oppose them in 2014, the latter will be their permanent international enemies.

  13. #13
    ความสุขในอีสาน
    nigelandjan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Frinton on sea and Ban Pak
    Posts
    12,921
    Quote Originally Posted by 9999
    Why not just execute them for treason and be done with it.
    Couldn't agree more although this won't happen unfortunately

    However the shit should never be allowed to travel back to the UK or ever land on our shores again .

  14. #14
    I am no longer a Hostage

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    25-03-2018 @ 08:02 PM
    Posts
    4,052
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post

    doesn't that number of 1500 seem absurdly high to anyone else?
    I find the government estimate of 400 absurdly low compared to what other countries report

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,042
    Quote Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog
    I am not clear why the UK and USA need to fight ISIS.
    same as it ever was: oil.




  16. #16
    Thailand Expat
    Lantern's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:53 PM
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,018
    Why not just execute them for treason and be done with it.

    I'm with you 9999. Much cheaper.

  17. #17
    Member
    Waid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Online
    22-09-2014 @ 09:15 AM
    Location
    SE Asia
    Posts
    253
    Nuclear tests, anyone?

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat raycarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,042
    slightly off topic, but shouldn't ISIS be relatively easy for the US to defeat with satellite images and drones?

  19. #19
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,513
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    slightly off topic, but shouldn't ISIS be relatively easy for the US to defeat with satellite images and drones?
    Yes, but why should it be p to the U.S. to expend resources fighting them?

    Just kidding.

    Of course once ISIS are well entrenched in the region it will be harder to dislodge them and the thing could drag on for years and years making a lot of people a lot of money.
    Wouldn't want the fight/goldrush to be over too soon by nipping it in the bud now would we.
    Last edited by Cujo; 21-08-2014 at 03:39 PM.

  20. #20
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:45 PM
    Posts
    60,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Koojo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    slightly off topic, but shouldn't ISIS be relatively easy for the US to defeat with satellite images and drones?
    Yes, but why should it be p to the U.S. to expend resources fighting them?

    Just kidding.

    Of course once ISIS are well entrenched in the region it will be harder to dislodge them and the thing could drag on for years and years making a lot of people a lot of money.
    Wouldn't want the fight/goldrush to be over too soon by nipping it in the bud now would we.
    And let's not forget how often the seppos blow up the wrong people.

  21. #21
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,686
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Of course, when our enlightened governments came out in support of al-Nusra in Syria, they opened the gates for this. Enjoy the schadenfreude.
    What nation did this and what evidence to you have of it? You have really been going over the edge of late.

  22. #22
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,686

    We Brits invented ‘friendly fire’

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koojo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raycarey View Post
    slightly off topic, but shouldn't ISIS be relatively easy for the US to defeat with satellite images and drones?
    Yes, but why should it be p to the U.S. to expend resources fighting them?

    Just kidding.

    Of course once ISIS are well entrenched in the region it will be harder to dislodge them and the thing could drag on for years and years making a lot of people a lot of money.
    Wouldn't want the fight/goldrush to be over too soon by nipping it in the bud now would we.
    And let's not forget how often the seppos blow up the wrong people.
    Another tired brittle whinge.

    Today's cheap critiques of the US military for its ‘friendly fire’ blunders in Iraq overlook Britain’s own disastrous history of killing its own.

    Whenever British troops are accidentally killed by ‘friendly fire’, there comes the routine complaint that this happens because US soldiers and fighter-pilots are incompetent and gung-ho, this itself stemming from the perception that Americans in general are stupid and inherently aggressive.

    ‘It’s not surprising that many British, Australian and Canadian soldiers have the brains to not want to fight with the Americans; it is to difficult to differentiate whether you fighting with or against them’, said one commenter on the website of The Times (London) in the wake of the deaths of three British servicemen in Afghanistan by US bombers last week. ‘Let the Taliban retire and wait till the US kills everybody, including themselves. My father said in WW2 Aussies “were more worried about the Yanks than the Nips”’, said another.

    Indeed the observation that Americans are helplessly prone to killing their own allies has become so ingrained in British culture that it is the source of a much-parroted joke. For instance, in October last year Dara O Briain on BBC2’s Mock the Week said that British soldiers in Iraq were being ‘shot at on a daily basis, although obviously it’ll get much safer when the Americans leave and it’s only the Iraqis firing at them’. More recently, BBC Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson said he was safe during a simulated ‘duel’ between a Lotus Exige and a Westland WAH-64 Apache helicopter because the pilots, ‘being British, not American, don’t shoot their allies’.
    These quips rest upon the twin assumptions that ‘friendly fire’ is a relatively new phenomenon and that only the Americans are guilty of it. Both preconceptions are untrue. What is more, Britain, an historically warfaring nation, has in the past been one of the worst offenders of killing its own in ‘friendly fire’ incidents.

    Even before the British state came into existence, the English in particular were making deadly gaffes. In 1471, during the War of the Roses, the Lancastrian division under the command of the Earl of Warwick - out of position in the poor light and mist of early dawn in Barnet, Hertfordshire - fired at a division led by the Earl of Somerset, a division that was similarly on the Red Rose side, inflicting severe casualties. During the Napoleonic wars, as a consequence of the Prince Regent having changed the British Light Dragoons’ headdress to a broad-topped model that resembled the French light cavalry shako, the Light Dragoons were fired upon by their own side at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo.

    Much worse was to come in the Second World War. Indeed, the very first planes to be shot down by Spitfires in that conflict were two Hawker Hurricanes, mistaken for Messerschmitt 109s. In 1939 the submarine HMS Triton sank fellow Royal Navy submarine HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a U-boat. In 1941, HMS Sheffield, misidentified as the Bismarck, was torpedoed by Fleet Air Arm. The following year, the Polish submarine ORP Jastrzab was sunk by HMS St Albans and HMS Seagull. In 1944 a British flotilla was attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons near Le Havre, and one, HMS Salamander, incurred such damage that it had to be scuppered.
    Let us also not forget the most ghastly incident of friendly fire of the Second World War, when on 3 May 1945, only a day before the German army capitulated, the RAF bombed three ships moored in Lübeck Harbour, which contained 7,000 French Jews and Russian and Polish PoWs. Many of those lucky enough to escape to dry land were murdered by the SS, and only 350 victims of RAF incompetence made it home alive.
    In contrast to today’s risk-averse, where-there’s-a-blame-there’s-a-claim society, one that believes – as witnessed in Vietnam in the 1960s and Yugoslavia in 1999 – that you defeat an enemy principally by bombing from the air without incurring any casualties, there was previously the sensible appreciation that if you give men lethal weapons and machinery, accidents will happen. This is because human beings are imperfect. As the columnist Bernard Dineen wrote in the Yorkshire Post of a specific friendly fire incident in Iraq in February: ‘Many years ago, I was on the receiving end of RAF friendly fire. The natural reaction of soldiers was “Bloody RAF”, but none of us really blamed the pilots. We recognised that such things happen in modern war. If anyone had suggested that the pilots should be court-martialled let alone brought before a civilian court, he would have been ridiculed.’ Of today’s howls of outrage, Dineen concluded: ‘Has the screening of the cockpit video brought any comfort to [the] widow? On the contrary, it can only have added to her anguish. Wanting to “know the facts” achieves nothing but heartache. The only essential fact was that the attack had been carried out by Americans: they admitted it from the start and expressed deep regret.’ (1)

    British soldiers have been shooting each other in my lifetime, too. In the 1982 Falklands War, HMS Cardiff shot down AAC Gazelle, while in the brief conflict the 3rd Battalion of the Paras exchanged gunfire and artillery fire with Army Companies A and C in one night-time episode, leading to eight casualties. Elsewhere, a UK Special Boat Service Commando was killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos.
    Admittedly, in the long term of things, ‘friendly fire’ is by numbers a relatively new phenomenon, only really emerging in the twentieth century. This owes to several factors. Before the advent of long-range rifles, machine guns, submarine and airborne warfare, fighting largely took place face-to-face and warships on the surface could recognise enemy colours and were more recently informed of the approach or location of enemy flotillas via Morse Code. This is why there existed in the past the seemingly ludicrous custom of military costume being in bright hues – English soldiers wore red and the French blue because it was vital to know you weren’t shooting at your own men. Camouflage, dating in this country from the Boer War, was introduced only when one’s enemy became a speck on the horizon, and in close combat helmet design became the sole signifier of a foe: the soup-plate helmet for the British and the Picklehauber (the one with the spike) and later the coal-scuttle helmet for the Germans. The particular silhouette created by these helmets became crucial in full, night-time combat – itself, thanks to heat-detecting camera technology, an invention of the twentieth century.

    What is more, before the advent of the popular press in the 1880s, any incidents of friendly fire would have gone unreported. Only since the popularisation of television in the 1950s (a key factor in subsequently making the public turn against the Vietnam War) and the internet and digital age of the 1990s, which has democratised information, have the horrors of war become made so abundantly clear to us.
    But the shift is not merely technological, nor cultural, mirroring our risk-averse society. It is also nakedly political. The fact that both Dara O Briain and Jeremy Clarkson, two television personalities from opposite sides of the political spectrum, make morbid jokes about ‘American soldiers shooting our Tommies’ tells us a great deal. One thing that unites the traditional left and non-neocon right in this country is its hatred and resentment of the US and Americans. The left hates them because they see them as imperialist bullies and morons (‘Ha ha! Look at George W Bush! He can’t speak properly!’), while the old-fashioned right has always resented Britain being usurped by the US in its role as the most powerful country in the world, and by a people they also regard as philistines (‘Look here my old colonial friend, I think you’ll find “colour” is spelt with a “u”’ – ignoring the fact, incidentally, that were it not for reforms made in British English in the eighteenth century, we would now be writing about the ‘war on terrour’, or lamenting that the Iraqi invasion was an ‘errour’).

    I recognise that the ‘war on terror’ has been a ghastly mistake, that we should never have gone to Afghanistan or Iraq, and that the White House seriously needs a rethink on its foreign policy. But otherwise, I like Americans. Carping at a nation that put the first man on the moon, invented the internet, gave us Hemingway, Copland, Woody Allen and the Simpsons, for being ‘stupid’, merely makes us appear petty and ignorant. And the fact that we Brits have an unenviable record of killing our own allies makes us look even the more stupid.

    We Brits invented ‘friendly fire’ | War on Iraq | spiked

    Shut up Harry.

  23. #23
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:45 PM
    Posts
    60,424
    I was kind of thinking of the hundreds of thousands of civilian iraqis they managed to kill while "liberating Iraq", but you carry on with your rant snubby.


  24. #24
    Thailand Expat
    Albert Shagnastier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    22-03-2015 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    7,164
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    Americans in general are stupid and inherently aggressive.
    Most - but not all Snubble.

  25. #25
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Speaking with a British accent doesn't automatically make somebody British. I have heard plenty of foreigners speaking English with British accents and a few British people speaking with non-British accents.
    It's a surprising number that can't figure this out.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •