Lord, in a day where wicked hands have acted to take life, we look to you whose desire is for healing, peace, unity and concord in our world.
We commend to you the lives of those taken and pray for those who have suffered loss.
We bring before you those who have been injured in body, mind, and spirit.
We pray for those who, perhaps far off, fear for their loved ones caught up in this violence.
You call us to be a people who always seek justice and show mercy; Lord, may this be our strong resolve as we seek to stand to protect others;
We pray for our Police and others who run towards danger to serve and protect others.
We pray for our nation, and for the world, that it might know your peace and love.
Shine your light in the darkness and give us hope through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 March 2017
Sunday, 22 May 2016
The United Kingdom and the EU - Terrorism and Borders
One of the areas most frequently discussed with me by those I meet has been that of terrorism and borders:
LEAVE
Those who want us to leave the EU are telling us that to leave the EU would be to make our nation a safer place.
Quoting figures from the European Union’s law enforcement agency (Europe) those favouring exit claim that Britain is more at risk from terrorist attacks if it continues as a member of the European Union. The reason for this centres largely on the freedom of movement that the EU apparently forces upon the UK - by admitting 'everyone' we apparently 'import risk' into our nation.
To support this position they claim that there are 'up to' 5,000 people in Europe who have attended training camps run by Islamic State and these people, already being in Europe, are free to travel from nation to nation without any border checks. They look to the Paris attacks to support this claim and point to photographs of one of those engaged in the awful happenings there which show they visited the UK.
If we left the EU and made our borders secure then, they reason, it would be impossible for terrorists to enter the country and that would make us safe from terrorism. Add to this the claim that leaving would free us from European law - and the setting us free from the European Court of Justice (ECJ)(remember them, the ECJ have stopped us deporting people to the US and other places because of perceived breaches of human rights) would mean that we could deport whosoever we wanted and govern ourselves make it increasingly difficult to deal effectively with that risk, in order to protect the public”.
It's the EU and the ECJ that cause us to accept everyone and costs us a fortune in monitoring these people once they are here posing a threat to our nationals and our towns and cities and even when we leave, they claim, the EU would be keen to work with us on policing and intelligence matters, after all - and I quote Dominic Raab - UK Justice Minister here:
“We return more suspects under European Arrest Warrants than any other EU member state. We have the biggest DNA database in Europe. And we have the best intelligence networks. In law enforcement terms, we are massive net contributors to the EU.”
Obvious then, isn't it? The EU would be foolish not to want to keep us onside once we've left!
But what do those who want us to stay have to say about this self-same subject? Left's have a look:
STAY
Fist and foremost what we need to remember is that the UK is outside Europe’s passport-free Schengen area, which means that we have border controls and checks, and this means that those perceived to be a threat to our country can be refused entry. Those of you who have travelled to and from Europe will recall seeing British Police and Home Office types checking passports at ports (and probably complaining about the delay that causes).
So immediately we have an apparent problem in that those supporting the 'leave' position appear to not be telling it as it really is as we already have in place what they claim would only be ours if we were to exit the EU - Isn't that a little naughty I have task myself?
What makes it more difficult is the fact that those who might be coming to our shores are, in the main, not apparently 'naughty' foreigners but are EU nationals; after all looking at the awfulness that was Paris , the majority of those involved were EU citizens. (Salah Abdeslam, was a Belgian-born French citizen, Najim Laachraoui, was also Belgian citizen)
They weren't 'foreigners' unless you consider their roots - in which case I'm Dutch and ready to be deported!
In fact, dare I say it, the xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant stance in nations like Belgium alienates and creates the backlash that is terrorism. Perhaps we need to stop the marches and popular wholesale responses against 'immigrant' so that they aren't isolated and alienated. Perhaps we need some education of our nationals to create a society which is more balanced rather than build a wall around our little island!
Living on the edge of one of the largest places where potential for marginalised people are to be found, it is likely that those who might act against our nation and those on its shores will have British passports! The Charlie Hebdo attacks were done by Said and Cherif Kouachi - French citizens, as was Mohamed Merah, who in 2012 killed seven people in Toulouse.
So which camp do you fancy having read this?
As far as I am concerned, overall, the jury is still out, but I know who I think has won this round of the debate. I have read many articles and tried to distill as much information into a concise format - I don't think I've over-egged either camps views and think it to be a fair assessment. But you are the judge and are free to put your views here and dialogue (something I'm not seeing too much of as I am engaged with - am I the only one they talk to?)
LEAVE
Those who want us to leave the EU are telling us that to leave the EU would be to make our nation a safer place.
Quoting figures from the European Union’s law enforcement agency (Europe) those favouring exit claim that Britain is more at risk from terrorist attacks if it continues as a member of the European Union. The reason for this centres largely on the freedom of movement that the EU apparently forces upon the UK - by admitting 'everyone' we apparently 'import risk' into our nation.
To support this position they claim that there are 'up to' 5,000 people in Europe who have attended training camps run by Islamic State and these people, already being in Europe, are free to travel from nation to nation without any border checks. They look to the Paris attacks to support this claim and point to photographs of one of those engaged in the awful happenings there which show they visited the UK.
If we left the EU and made our borders secure then, they reason, it would be impossible for terrorists to enter the country and that would make us safe from terrorism. Add to this the claim that leaving would free us from European law - and the setting us free from the European Court of Justice (ECJ)(remember them, the ECJ have stopped us deporting people to the US and other places because of perceived breaches of human rights) would mean that we could deport whosoever we wanted and govern ourselves make it increasingly difficult to deal effectively with that risk, in order to protect the public”.
It's the EU and the ECJ that cause us to accept everyone and costs us a fortune in monitoring these people once they are here posing a threat to our nationals and our towns and cities and even when we leave, they claim, the EU would be keen to work with us on policing and intelligence matters, after all - and I quote Dominic Raab - UK Justice Minister here:
“We return more suspects under European Arrest Warrants than any other EU member state. We have the biggest DNA database in Europe. And we have the best intelligence networks. In law enforcement terms, we are massive net contributors to the EU.”
Obvious then, isn't it? The EU would be foolish not to want to keep us onside once we've left!
But what do those who want us to stay have to say about this self-same subject? Left's have a look:
STAY
Fist and foremost what we need to remember is that the UK is outside Europe’s passport-free Schengen area, which means that we have border controls and checks, and this means that those perceived to be a threat to our country can be refused entry. Those of you who have travelled to and from Europe will recall seeing British Police and Home Office types checking passports at ports (and probably complaining about the delay that causes).
So immediately we have an apparent problem in that those supporting the 'leave' position appear to not be telling it as it really is as we already have in place what they claim would only be ours if we were to exit the EU - Isn't that a little naughty I have task myself?
What makes it more difficult is the fact that those who might be coming to our shores are, in the main, not apparently 'naughty' foreigners but are EU nationals; after all looking at the awfulness that was Paris , the majority of those involved were EU citizens. (Salah Abdeslam, was a Belgian-born French citizen, Najim Laachraoui, was also Belgian citizen)
They weren't 'foreigners' unless you consider their roots - in which case I'm Dutch and ready to be deported!
In fact, dare I say it, the xenophobic, racist, anti-immigrant stance in nations like Belgium alienates and creates the backlash that is terrorism. Perhaps we need to stop the marches and popular wholesale responses against 'immigrant' so that they aren't isolated and alienated. Perhaps we need some education of our nationals to create a society which is more balanced rather than build a wall around our little island!
Living on the edge of one of the largest places where potential for marginalised people are to be found, it is likely that those who might act against our nation and those on its shores will have British passports! The Charlie Hebdo attacks were done by Said and Cherif Kouachi - French citizens, as was Mohamed Merah, who in 2012 killed seven people in Toulouse.
So which camp do you fancy having read this?
As far as I am concerned, overall, the jury is still out, but I know who I think has won this round of the debate. I have read many articles and tried to distill as much information into a concise format - I don't think I've over-egged either camps views and think it to be a fair assessment. But you are the judge and are free to put your views here and dialogue (something I'm not seeing too much of as I am engaged with - am I the only one they talk to?)
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Should we worry at how the French see us?
In a recent article in the Daily Torygraph (26th April 2011), Andrew Gilligan, on the issue of terrorism quotes a French official as claiming that Britain is , "The Pakistan of the West," in that we are incubator, entrepot and exporter of islamic radicalism.
Now, I neither deny nor defend the comments, for they are undeniable and without defence, but I do have to admit that I take exception to the being labelled thus by a blessed Frenchman (or even a Frenchwoman, nothing sexist about me!). Having someone from the same nation that closes borders to prevent the ingress of Tunisians (isn't that a former French protectorate or was I sleeping in geog. lessons?). The same nation that takes immigrants from other places and then almost assists them to get on the crossings to the UK because it solves the French immigration (and their own terrorism) problems (and gives them someone to point the finger at, as they do)? The same nation that served soldiers from their North African territories smaller portions and paid them less during the war and gave them a pretty non-existent pension after it (Gurkha anyone)? The same nation that discriminates and crowds into ghettoes those from former colonies, treating them abysmally as second-class citizens?
Can I suggest that before the French decide to lecture anyone about immigration and fostering terrorism, that they take a look in their own mirrors, for I assume they will see nothing but closed-minded bigots and fools. I would love them to suspend the Shengen agreement and do something about the traffic that flows (as quickly as possible) through France to end up on our shores, not to protect the French, but the British.
Sadly those, we have people who are just as foolish as the french on this side of the puddle too! These are the people who see terrorism behind every dark skin and in possession of the Koran. The problem is that we have imported many of our problems from many other places and now indeed do have a radicalised and potentially unsafe minority within our shores. The key here is education and engagement. Not with the EDL, BNP or the Daily Fascist readers and foolish men like Jones and Sapp but with people who are moderate and intelligent.
We need to ask what drives young men and women to become radicalised. What it is that takes a Christian (albleit a nominal Christian) and turns him or her into a Muslim who is willing to die for their faith (Blimey, I'd be happy of I could get them to join and come on a Sunday evening, so what's the key?)?
Where there is acquiescence on the part of the state, incompetence on the part of the intelligence services and funding of those who might otherwise be enemies of the 'hand that feeds them', then (intelligent, balanced and rational) action is required. But in saying this can I recommend a couple of films for your consideration.
The first is a war film, "Days of Glory" (Director: Rachid Bouchareb),
The second, an excellent apologetic for the secular Muslim, "My Name is Khan' (Director: Karan Johar).
I have more, but these will do for starters. We need to consider the integrity and actions of others when considering this issue. That some will misrepresent any faith for their own evil (financial, political or social) is nothing new, but accepting it is not, and never has been, an option.
We need to pray, dialogue and be the difference in this area - not condemn and solidify the lines that might currently only be drawn in chalk, before they are:
Pax
Now, I neither deny nor defend the comments, for they are undeniable and without defence, but I do have to admit that I take exception to the being labelled thus by a blessed Frenchman (or even a Frenchwoman, nothing sexist about me!). Having someone from the same nation that closes borders to prevent the ingress of Tunisians (isn't that a former French protectorate or was I sleeping in geog. lessons?). The same nation that takes immigrants from other places and then almost assists them to get on the crossings to the UK because it solves the French immigration (and their own terrorism) problems (and gives them someone to point the finger at, as they do)? The same nation that served soldiers from their North African territories smaller portions and paid them less during the war and gave them a pretty non-existent pension after it (Gurkha anyone)? The same nation that discriminates and crowds into ghettoes those from former colonies, treating them abysmally as second-class citizens?
Can I suggest that before the French decide to lecture anyone about immigration and fostering terrorism, that they take a look in their own mirrors, for I assume they will see nothing but closed-minded bigots and fools. I would love them to suspend the Shengen agreement and do something about the traffic that flows (as quickly as possible) through France to end up on our shores, not to protect the French, but the British.
Sadly those, we have people who are just as foolish as the french on this side of the puddle too! These are the people who see terrorism behind every dark skin and in possession of the Koran. The problem is that we have imported many of our problems from many other places and now indeed do have a radicalised and potentially unsafe minority within our shores. The key here is education and engagement. Not with the EDL, BNP or the Daily Fascist readers and foolish men like Jones and Sapp but with people who are moderate and intelligent.
We need to ask what drives young men and women to become radicalised. What it is that takes a Christian (albleit a nominal Christian) and turns him or her into a Muslim who is willing to die for their faith (Blimey, I'd be happy of I could get them to join and come on a Sunday evening, so what's the key?)?
Where there is acquiescence on the part of the state, incompetence on the part of the intelligence services and funding of those who might otherwise be enemies of the 'hand that feeds them', then (intelligent, balanced and rational) action is required. But in saying this can I recommend a couple of films for your consideration.
The first is a war film, "Days of Glory" (Director: Rachid Bouchareb),
The second, an excellent apologetic for the secular Muslim, "My Name is Khan' (Director: Karan Johar).
I have more, but these will do for starters. We need to consider the integrity and actions of others when considering this issue. That some will misrepresent any faith for their own evil (financial, political or social) is nothing new, but accepting it is not, and never has been, an option.
We need to pray, dialogue and be the difference in this area - not condemn and solidify the lines that might currently only be drawn in chalk, before they are:
Get the picture?
Pax
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Israel - Victim of their own victimisation?
In reading about PTSD and the effects of conflict I chanced across an interesting paper (which typically I can't lay my hands on). This paper spoke of the effects of war in socialising those engaged in, surrounded by, or being victims of atrocities. Those affected by it, in some way, become dehumanised and, ironically, behave in the same way as those with whom they contended or (in the case of victims) were abused by.
I first came across this on a first-hand basis when talking to a veteran of the Far East conflict who spoke of the difficulty he found in trying to live 'normally' after the war because the "boundaries has all been moved or even removed."
Watching the final episode of 'The promise' and seeing Israelis move from house to house in the Arab village (9th April 1948) I was stunned by the parallels between that place and many other places where those doing the shooting were Nazis. I saw no difference between this and see none even still in the goings on of today's Israel.
The comment that the army weren't present in the settlements to keep the peace, merely to protect the Jews and that killing, beatings and abuse would draw no attention other than perhaps support for the acts brought me back to the ghettos and the acts within them.
The labelling of the arabs and the dehumanising and parallels with the Jews of 1938 onwards displayed the same dehumanising, gratuitous, senseless, and repeated, acts of atrocity and violence of the 1930's and beyond. The abuse of those who are rendered powerless, homeless and voiceless (other than through the mortars and 'terrorist acts of some' is no different at all from the Nazis.
And so I ask myself, are the Jewish perhaps a dehumanised victim of that which the Jews suffered during the shoah? Is Israel, the nation state, so far from God because it is a nation that has lost its soul to bitterness and wickedness as a response to its modern past?
The terrorist acts that saw many die in the early stages of modern israel's history (including of course the King David Hotel in 1946) were done by the same people who saw power in the government of Israel. Were they terrorists or 'freedom fighters'? Are those who have lost their homeland of Palestine terrorists or freedom fighters now in exactly the same way?
Questions, questions and more questions!
Lies, misrepresentations and deliberate spinning of the truth make this an even more difficult subject as each layer is peeled away. Could this explain how, and why, the nation state is so far from the God who promised the land they occupy and His commandments and a relationship with Him?
Israel dehumanised victims or inhuman territorialists?
You tell me!
Pax
I first came across this on a first-hand basis when talking to a veteran of the Far East conflict who spoke of the difficulty he found in trying to live 'normally' after the war because the "boundaries has all been moved or even removed."
Watching the final episode of 'The promise' and seeing Israelis move from house to house in the Arab village (9th April 1948) I was stunned by the parallels between that place and many other places where those doing the shooting were Nazis. I saw no difference between this and see none even still in the goings on of today's Israel.
The comment that the army weren't present in the settlements to keep the peace, merely to protect the Jews and that killing, beatings and abuse would draw no attention other than perhaps support for the acts brought me back to the ghettos and the acts within them.
The labelling of the arabs and the dehumanising and parallels with the Jews of 1938 onwards displayed the same dehumanising, gratuitous, senseless, and repeated, acts of atrocity and violence of the 1930's and beyond. The abuse of those who are rendered powerless, homeless and voiceless (other than through the mortars and 'terrorist acts of some' is no different at all from the Nazis.
And so I ask myself, are the Jewish perhaps a dehumanised victim of that which the Jews suffered during the shoah? Is Israel, the nation state, so far from God because it is a nation that has lost its soul to bitterness and wickedness as a response to its modern past?
The terrorist acts that saw many die in the early stages of modern israel's history (including of course the King David Hotel in 1946) were done by the same people who saw power in the government of Israel. Were they terrorists or 'freedom fighters'? Are those who have lost their homeland of Palestine terrorists or freedom fighters now in exactly the same way?
Questions, questions and more questions!
Lies, misrepresentations and deliberate spinning of the truth make this an even more difficult subject as each layer is peeled away. Could this explain how, and why, the nation state is so far from the God who promised the land they occupy and His commandments and a relationship with Him?
Israel dehumanised victims or inhuman territorialists?
You tell me!
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)