Has the U.K.inadvertently promoted Islamic radicalization ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   By allowing Sharia  courts to develop alongside their own ?
   
   By electing the London mayor who doesn't , didn't promote islamic assimilation ?
   
   By  electing a Prime Minister  who lead their homeland security for six years and failed to recognize  or limit radicalized immigration  ?
   
   The hard  questions must be asked and answered for all .

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Greensleeves Hubsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      By all accounts the UK actually has a better record at least on liaison between communities than most other countries in Europe. In recent years, a very large number of would-be terrorist attacks have been thwarted - in large measure because of cooperation between the Moslem community and the police, with information being passed on to the police about individuals who the Imans feel, may have been radicalised. However, concerning your three points:
      
      1) So-called Sharia courts are really just advisory councils which have no authority whatsoever. They cannot make legally binding judgements, and no Moslem is obliged to obey their 'rulings'. Of course some Moslems do choose to obey what these religious councils say - that's a shame but in a free country if people want to have their lives dictated to by centuries old religion, then it is their right to do so - so long as what they do does not break the secular laws of the land. (And if such councils had been banned, that might only have alienated some Moslems even more).
      
      2) I'm not sure what you think the London Mayor should have done that he hasn't? He has promoted moderation, assimilation, and obeyance of the Law of the Land. Can you give evidence of ways in which he has not? (I am not a supporter of his party, but I defend him on this 100%).
      
      3) I would agree to some extent with this third point (the idea that we've been too slack on Moslem immigration) but with several strong caveats. Firstly Theresa May as Home Secretary could not have limited Moslem immigration on her own authority, but only through a parliamentary vote which would undoubtedly have been lost, on the grounds of discrimination. I don't necessarilly agree with that, but that's the way it is. Secondly, she hasn't actually been elected as Prime Minister by the public yet - only by the Conservative Party - though I hope she will be elected as Prime Minister in the General Election this week. Thirdly, it seems most of the terrorists who have recently committed radical acts, have been British born and bred, and most of their radicalisation has come through the Internet. (There were radical Islamic preachers in the 1990s and early 2000s but thankfully most of those have now been routed out).
      
      I think we do have to be more cautious about Islamic immigration, and I personally favour a ban on certain customs, notably the wearing of the burka (though not the head scarf), but I'm not sure any of the measures you've raised could have reduced the level of Islamic radicalisation in the past 10 years.

      replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   I DO believe that if not  for the incredible UK intel agencies , Who do not mess around much  and would probably not be able to work in P.C. driven America  There would have been far more terror there and perhaps here in America , Canada , too !
   
   Hats off to MI  6 !  {is the number right ? ]

   replyreport
   1. 79

      colorfuloneposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Censorship:  The British Prime Minister is calling for international internet regulations to combat terrorism.  Veil leaders want to control free speech...make everyone politically correct or else...
      The left is aligned with Islam.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         The left seems aligned with anything that goes against  American traditions , ........Just out of spite ?

         replyreport
      2. 90

         Greensleeves Hubsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry, can you clarify for me because there seems to me to be a contradiction. First I read your comment one way, then I thought maybe there was a different interpretation.
         
         It sounds as though you are opposed to censorship? But does that mean you oppose moves by the Prime Minister to try to introduce stronger Internet regulations, curbing 'free speech'?
         
         Also you say 'veil leaders' (Muslims?) want to control free speech? Are you saying the prime minister is aligning with Islam?

         replyreport
   2. 90

      Greensleeves Hubsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There are 3 branches of the British Intelligence and Security services - GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. In these days of cyber attacks, hacking, etc, distinctions between human and electronic intelligence gathering, and between domestic and foreign security, become blurred. However, broadly speaking, the differences between the three are:
      
      GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) is apparently the equivalent of the American National Security Agency (NSA). It is mainly concerned with gathering intelligence from the monitoring of electronic communications.
      
      MI5 (Military Intelligence) is mainly concerned with homeland security, uncovering espionage, counter-terrorism etc. I believe its nearest equivalent in America may be the FBI, though maybe its scope is narrower, less concerned with conventional criminal offences such as murder, kidnapping etc. (Because we have a national police force to deal with those kinds of crimes).
      
      MI6 is concerned with foreign intelligence gathering, and so is more similar to the CIA. James Bond, to put it crudely, would be a member of MI6 ( as he mainly gets to operate in exotic locations on palm-fringed beaches).

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Ahh ,Thanks for that clarification !  I see a far more effective , unfettered policing in the UK .than here .

         replyreport