Worldwide Politics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 7164
  • Start date Start date
Azas said:
Why do you think my post has to be confrontational—that is, directed at some specific user? I already answered you: is it forbidden to voice one’s concerns, even if they’re partly rhetorical or theoretical, about certain aspects of politics?" And if this is a made-up problem to you, then let’s agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with confrontation. I'm not asking which member said something along the lines. You made a pretty definitive claim that sounds incredibly outlandish and I would like to entertain that thought. I'm asking you how you came to such a conclusion.

In other words: Who denies radical Islamism as a threat and says it doesn't exist? Germany? France? The US? The UK? Spain? Italy?

Again, pretty simple question. Don't know why it's so difficult to answer.
 
And to explain my confusion and why I'd like an answer:

A rhetorical question is asked to make a point. Saying "it's time to stop denying radical Islamism exists" isn't a rhetorical question. It's a statement. Which begs the question "who is denying it?", otherwise we can't engage with this raised problem.

Of course anyone is free to raise concerns. Pretending all (some? one? many? few?) governments aren't taking your concerns seriously and are outright denying their existence is quite a bit different than "raising concerns".

Healthy and constructive discussion requires a baseline of facts and truth. If we just make up strawmen to shadowbox with, there's nothing to discuss, nothing to interact with in any meaningful capacity. Which renders the whole thing quite meaningless. As far as I know we have a rant thread on the board, which might be more suitable, if the whole point was to simply air your frustration and refusing to actually elaborate on positions.
 
UpTheIrons said:
The fact that people with such an ideology are present and posing a threat in Western and Anglosphere countries in such large numbers is proof that the threat has not been taken seriously enough up until now, it is and always has been an entirely avoidable problem. For instance in Britain it is estimated that some 30,000 such individuals are on the MI5 terror watchlist (75% of the total watchlist, and a roughly 11-12x rate of over-representation). The next time one of them blows themselves up, runs people over in a vehicular attack or goes on a shooting or stabbing spree it will more than likely be reported that they were 'known to the authorities'. Not good enough.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, where do those figures come from?
 
So… the need to defend Christmas markets in Germany is absolutely—baseline—normal? If not—and it isn’t—then that answers all the questions you addressed to me.
 
Azas said:
So… the need to defend Christmas markets in Germany is absolutely—baseline—normal? If not—and it isn’t—then that answers all the questions you addressed to me.
Click to expand...
The fact that there is a police presence proves that they are taking radical Islamism seriously, which in turn proves that your earlier claims were unfounded and contradictory. Glad you concede that you just made up stuff to be angry once again, that's all I needed :)
 
GhostofCain said:
Out of curiosity, where do those figures come from?
Click to expand...
The 75% figure comes from a threat update given by MI5 in October 2024:

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/director-general-ken-mccallum-gives-latest-threat-update

There was a similar address given in October of this year but as far as I can tell it does not provide a percentage breakdown, so I am making the assumption that these figures have not drastically shifted in the last year.

The estimate of this as being some 30,000 people is based on the fact that in mid-2020, the total number of individuals on the list was 43,000. It seems like these numbers are not periodically released, probably for reasons of security or secrecy. This was the most up-to-date figure I could find - in an article from The Times, but the original source is a government report published around this time:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article...r-mi5-rechecks-its-list-pqm6k62ph?gaa_at=eafs
 
:cool: Colleague, I see how you’re trying to spin my words in your favor, but I respectfully disagree. The increased police presence at festive markets proves the opposite: the watchdogs were not present when bad actors entered Germany. Of course, you won’t catch everyone, but you have to try harder.
 
UpTheIrons said:
The 75% figure comes from a threat update given by MI5 in October 2024:

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/director-general-ken-mccallum-gives-latest-threat-update

There was a similar address given in October of this year but as far as I can tell it does not provide a percentage breakdown, so I am making the assumption that these figures have not drastically shifted in the last year.

The estimate of this as being some 30,000 people is based on the fact that in mid-2020, the total number of individuals on the list was 43,000. It seems like these numbers are not periodically released, probably for reasons of security or secrecy. This was the most up-to-date figure I could find - in an article from The Times, but the original source is a government report published around this time:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article...r-mi5-rechecks-its-list-pqm6k62ph?gaa_at=eafs
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
So… there have been large-scale unrests going on in Iran for roughly two weeks now. Many people are dead; the ayatollah regime’s thugs are shooting their own citizens, and so on. It’s worth noting how silent much of the Western crowd has been about this. I haven’t researched it thoroughly—so I may be wrong—but Greta Thunberg seems silent, the pro-Palestinian crowd seems silent, and even the media appears relatively muted. Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but still.

And honestly, that tells you everything you need to know about those pro-Palestinian protesters and Greta Thunberg–type figures. I guess ordinary Iranians didn’t pay enough money for those vultures’ attention. Hmm. Even Ukraine’s war turned out to be ‘unprofitable’ for them. If you look with open eyes, you see who is who.

This post is for the future. I told you so.
 
We are seeing a genocide being enacted in broad daylight in Gaza, with support of the mightiest super power of the world.

At the same time, many of the people who are pro-Palestine are calling out the horrific actions of the Iranian government. Just because your Twitter feed isn't showing you that, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Also, let's not forget that Iran used to be a democracy until the US and UK overthrew their government. What is happening today is a direct consequence of actions from the previous century.
 
Last edited:
Azas said:
So… there have been large-scale unrests going on in Iran for roughly two weeks now. Many people are dead; the ayatollah regime’s thugs are shooting their own citizens, and so on. It’s worth noting how silent much of the Western crowd has been about this. I haven’t researched it thoroughly—so I may be wrong—but Greta Thunberg seems silent, the pro-Palestinian crowd seems silent, and even the media appears relatively muted. Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit, but still.

And honestly, that tells you everything you need to know about those pro-Palestinian protesters and Greta Thunberg–type figures. I guess ordinary Iranians didn’t pay enough money for those vultures’ attention. Hmm. Even Ukraine’s war turned out to be ‘unprofitable’ for them. If you look with open eyes, you see who is who.

This post is for the future. I told you so.
Click to expand...
True, the silence of certain groups and individuals speaks volumes about their true motivations on this issue.
 
Also, isn't it mightily ironic that pro-Palestinian groups are being called out for only caring about Gaza, while at the same time we have multiple forum members who only ever post about certain topics (like Iran in this instance), not because they care about the topic, but exclusively to attack pro-Palestinian sentiments?

Y'all aren't fooling anyone ;)
 
I also care about the killing of people (Christians?) in Africa—Sudan and elsewhere—but I don’t post about it, because it feels futile and it would add too much negativity on my side.

And yes, once again, imo, the pro-Palestinian crowd—mostly—appears in a very negative light to me. Hell, even Mamdani called out those loons on the streets of New York for chanting that they support hamas. One has to actually listen to what they are saying and not turn a blind eye to it.
Fuck them. Fuck them all. Most of them are useful idiots; the rest are paid—by Iran, Qatar, russia, you name it.
 
It looks like a regime-change operation to me, as of classic regime -change playbook, in the start protesting is genuine and peaceful then armed and/or violent groups backed by foreign agencies mingle inside the protesters spreading chaos. Western media exaggerate or one side reporting to manufacture public consent, then US intervene with one way or another and so on.

thegrayzone.com

Western media whitewashes deadly riots in Iran, relying on US govt-funded regime change NGOs - The Grayzone

As deadly riots burn Iranian cities, Western media ignores the shocking wave of violence, turning instead to US government-funded NGOs for data. The one-sided portrayal has helped push Trump to the brink of authorizing renewed US attacks. Western media has ignored a growing trove of video...
thegrayzone.com thegrayzone.com
 
srfc said:
is "government funded ngo's" not an oxymoron?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world it would be.
However NGOs are an important tool for regime changing operations since at least Clinton’s time.
And NED is the crown jewel, the mother of NGOs.

ChatGPT
Yes — the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is legally an NGO, but with important qualifications.
Short answer:
  • Formally: Yes, NED is a non-governmental organization (a private, nonprofit 501(c)(3)).
  • Functionally: It is often described as a quasi-governmental NGO.
Why the distinction matters:
  • NED is not part of the U.S. government and is not a federal agency.
  • However, it is almost entirely funded by the U.S. Congress through annual appropriations.
  • Its board includes current and former U.S. officials, and its mission aligns closely with U.S. foreign policy goals (promoting democracy abroad).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top