France v The Muslims

I'm not really sure of the background to this but it seems France has sort of made an armed stance against the spread of Islam in Africa.

At first they have intervened in Mali - to stop it becoming another home for terrorist just like Afghanistan was -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20986704

Then they have acted in Somalia to free French hostages because they believe the Islamists would kill them for their intervention in Mali -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20996963

And now they are expecting possible terrorist attacks in France -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20999348

Not sure why they seem to be acting without American and British involvement - can only assume that we don't agree with what they are doing?

Wonder what if anything is going to happen next?

Sluffy wrote:I'm not really sure of the background to this but it seems France has sort of made an armed stance against the spread of Islam in Africa.

At first they have intervened in Mali - to stop it becoming another home for terrorist just like Afghanistan was -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20986704

Then they have acted in Somalia to free French hostages because they believe the Islamists would kill them for their intervention in Mali -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20996963

And now they are expecting possible terrorist attacks in France -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20999348

Not sure why they seem to be acting without American and British involvement - can only assume that we don't agree with what they are doing?

Wonder what if anything is going to happen next?

frogs will surrender

Sluffy wrote:I'm not really sure of the background to this but it seems France has sort of made an armed stance against the spread of Islam in Africa.

At first they have intervened in Mali - to stop it becoming another home for terrorist just like Afghanistan was -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20986704

Then they have acted in Somalia to free French hostages because they believe the Islamists would kill them for their intervention in Mali -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20996963

And now they are expecting possible terrorist attacks in France -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20999348

Not sure why they seem to be acting without American and British involvement - can only assume that we don't agree with what they are doing?

Wonder what if anything is going to happen next?

We are not involved due to the fact that:

1 No oil in those countries
2 We have no interest in those countries whatsoever
3 We basically have no armed forces anymore thanks to the ConDems
4 We cannot afford to send troops further than Calais nowadays!
5 Leave the French to it - even the UN are not involved, yet!

It looks like the French Commandos got things round in Somalia. The captive they were trying to free was killed by his captors and the French had one of their own killed and another one missing.

I think it's just the French doing their usual stuff with the added factor that their President is an even bigger tosser than Cameron.

Mali is a former French colony and they do intervene to keep their pet dictators in power - as long as they keep speaking French.

In Somalia they were trying to rescue one of their agents. We have done similar stuff in Afghanistan.

Stepping up security is probably unnecessary but you can understand why they would do it - we would do exactly the same.

bwfc71 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm not really sure of the background to this but it seems France has sort of made an armed stance against the spread of Islam in Africa.

At first they have intervened in Mali - to stop it becoming another home for terrorist just like Afghanistan was -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20986704

Then they have acted in Somalia to free French hostages because they believe the Islamists would kill them for their intervention in Mali -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20996963

And now they are expecting possible terrorist attacks in France -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20999348

Not sure why they seem to be acting without American and British involvement - can only assume that we don't agree with what they are doing?

Wonder what if anything is going to happen next?

We are not involved due to the fact that:

1 No oil in those countries
2 We have no interest in those countries whatsoever
3 We basically have no armed forces anymore thanks to the ConDems
4 We cannot afford to send troops further than Calais nowadays!
5 Leave the French to it - even the UN are not involved, yet!

Unfortunately -we are involved. According to the BBC we've been asked by thre French and agreed to offer transport for French troops and equipment to Mali. Why the hell did we agree to this?? It only brings more trouble to our streets.
When will we ever learn to keep out of other peoples problems

rammywhite wrote:
When will we ever learn to keep out of other peoples problems

Presumably the French are trying to muscle in on our "special relationship" with America? Only the Brits have been willing to pull stunts like this for Yank business in the past, but it looks like they've cottoned on.

We'd better invade Pakistan and sharpish if we don't want to lose our position as top Yank ass-lickers.

Islam is a threat to this country.

How does the UK helping the French in a pitiful little nonentity like Mali help to reduce or eliminate this threat? It only increases it

Angry Dad wrote:Islam is a threat to this country.

Extremists in the name of whatever religion are a threat to any country.

wanderlust wrote:

Angry Dad wrote:Islam is a threat to this country.

Extremists in the name of whatever religion are a threat to any country.

So why increase the threat by attacking extremists in another country.
The French ,with their view of their ex-colonies,have brought this on themselves. If we had any sense we would keep out of it as it might rebound on our citizens either at home or abroad.
I know full well it's our involvement with the EU that causes us to be forced to support military interventions like this. I wonder if Germany was 'invited' to contribute but they told the French to get lost.

Air it all goes belly up for the frogs we'll have to bail um out as usual. Just as a side issue can anybody explain the difference between a sunny and a shite Muslim?

Soul Kitchen wrote:Air it all goes belly up for the frogs we'll have to bail um out as usual. Just as a side issue can anybody explain the difference between a sunny and a shite Muslim?

Does it matter? It's down to a different interpretation of correct religious belief, just like the difference between all the different flavours of Christianity. People who believe crap get really worked up about people who believe a slightly different kind of crap.

Soul Kitchen wrote:Air it all goes belly up for the frogs we'll have to bail um out as usual. Just as a side issue can anybody explain the difference between a sunny and a shite Muslim?

The Sunni are not as radical as the Shia. The Sunni are far more westernised in both their lifestyle and their approach to religion. The Sunni wear western clothes and allow their wives to do the same. Many of them drink alcohol even though the Koran forbids it. The Sunni faith practice Ramadan and Eide Al Fitre and pray to Mecca but they are more open to the possibility that not everything in the Koran is meant to be taken literally.

Some leaders of the middle east were educated by the west and have seen the benefits of living in a democracy and having the trappings of wealth that capitalism can bring.

The west has traditionally backed Sunni leaders whenever there has been conflict in the middle east. The west rarely try to negotiate with Shia leaders because they only accept Sharia law. The Shia are the hardliners who want to convert the whole world to Islam. Women are treated as subservient and must be covered up in public.

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni muslim as was Parvez Musharaf in Pakistan until he was overthtrown.

The west backed Saddam with his war against Iran because they could not reason with Ayatollah Khomeini. They only took him on after he invaded Kuwait.

Many middle eastern countries are ruled by dynasties. Bahrein, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc etc.

Turkey is a muslim country but the majority of it's people are Sunni. Sunni countries tend to be more cosmopolitan and encourage tourism whereas Shia dominated countries tend to led a more austere lifestyle i.e. Afghanistan.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

Soul Kitchen wrote:Air it all goes belly up for the frogs we'll have to bail um out as usual. Just as a side issue can anybody explain the difference between a sunny and a shite Muslim?

The Sunni are not as radical as the Shia. The Sunni are far more westernised in both their lifestyle and their approach to religion. The Sunni wear western clothes and allow their wives to do the same. Many of them drink alcohol even though the Koran forbids it. The Sunni faith practice Ramadan and Eide Al Fitre and pray to Mecca but they are more open to the possibility that not everything in the Koran is meant to be taken literally.

Some leaders of the middle east were educated by the west and have seen the benefits of living in a democracy and having the trappings of wealth that capitalism can bring.

The west has traditionally backed Sunni leaders whenever there has been conflict in the middle east. The west rarely try to negotiate with Shia leaders because they only accept Sharia law. The Shia are the hardliners who want to convert the whole world to Islam. Women are treated as subservient and must be covered up in public.

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni muslim as was Parvez Musharaf in Pakistan until he was overthtrown.

The west backed Saddam with his war against Iran because they could not reason with Ayatollah Khomeini. They only took him on after he invaded Kuwait.

Many middle eastern countries are ruled by dynasties. Bahrein, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria etc etc.

Turkey is a muslim country but the majority of it's people are Sunni. Sunni countries tend to be more cosmopolitan and encourage tourism whereas Shia dominated countries tend to led a more austere lifestyle i.e. Afghanistan.

This is true only up to a point. It is more complicated than saying the Sunni are less radical. Two major important facts illustrate this:

1. The Saudi regime backs a hardline Sunni interpretation of the Koran as does Al-Qaeda.

2. The country with the largest Shiite majority is Iran which is Persian rather than Arab and has traditionally not got on with its Arab neighbours. There are only 3 other countries with a Shiite majority: Iraq, Azerbaijan and Bahrain. Western governments have never had a problem negotiating with Azerbaijan.

Thanks for that, I think it's all a load of bollox but at least it goes some way to explaining why they are killing each other in Pakistan. Religion is the biggest evil ever invented by man!

The majority of the population in Pakistan are Shia and they are always at loggerheads with the Sunny muslims.

Reebok Trotter wrote:The majority of the population in Pakistan are Shia and they are always at loggerheads with the Sunny muslims.

It's the other way round. Only 10-15% of the population of Pakistan is Shiite. They have recently been the victims of a number of terrorist attacks committed by Sunni nutters e.g. Quetta see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20984704

rammywhite wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I'm not really sure of the background to this but it seems France has sort of made an armed stance against the spread of Islam in Africa.

At first they have intervened in Mali - to stop it becoming another home for terrorist just like Afghanistan was -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20986704

Then they have acted in Somalia to free French hostages because they believe the Islamists would kill them for their intervention in Mali -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20996963

And now they are expecting possible terrorist attacks in France -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20999348

Not sure why they seem to be acting without American and British involvement - can only assume that we don't agree with what they are doing?

Wonder what if anything is going to happen next?

We are not involved due to the fact that:

1 No oil in those countries
2 We have no interest in those countries whatsoever
3 We basically have no armed forces anymore thanks to the ConDems
4 We cannot afford to send troops further than Calais nowadays!
5 Leave the French to it - even the UN are not involved, yet!

Unfortunately -we are involved. According to the BBC we've been asked by thre French and agreed to offer transport for French troops and equipment to Mali. Why the hell did we agree to this?? It only brings more trouble to our streets.
When will we ever learn to keep out of other peoples problems

Possibly mainly because we have signed an agreement with the French over our still to be built aircraft carriers and the French use of them!!!