Western powers can definitely change their foreign policies.

We have seen examples with Spain immediately withdrawing from Iraq after the Madrid attrocities and the islamists left them alone ever since!!!

We have seen France who suffered from islamist attacks in 90s being left alone after they disengaged from Algeria and Chirac was seen as an honest broker on Iraq and the Israel/Palestine issue. Things only got bad again because Sarkozy wanted to be so matey with Bush he upped the ante in the war in Afghanistan and was passing laws restricting religious freedom for muslims.

Britain as well never suffered from attacks before we attacked Iraq and we used to be good pals with the islamists when we gave Abu Qatada asylum in 94 and were collaborating with the likes of Abu Hamza.

We can go back to simply doing business with the Middle East without trying to impose our western values on them just like the Japanese, Russians and Chinese seem able to do.

I wholeheartedly agree Squeezefirmly
Our governments have allowed themselves to be used by the Americans

On the news, I see America is now going to supply arms directly to Syria's Rebels
since the rebels now have the support of the most powerful military nation on earth
with the best weapons
there is no need whatsoever for us to be involved

I hope even our 'cerebrally challenged' government can see this

although if the rebels wish to buy our weapons that would be acceptable ..we need the money
but there is no need to give them our weapons...they have a supplier

We can go back to simply doing business with the Middle East without trying to impose our western values on them just like the Japanese, Russians and Chinese seem able to do.

... and alack

Religions are ok until they impose themselves on others by force
but this also implies, it is equally wrong to deprive people of Religion by force

it is not the Religion that is at fault here, it is the by force

Only if you put a moth in your mouth and then ask for chicken flied rice..

Call me old-fashioned, but if someone physically attacked me, or wrote me some idiotic public death threat on Twitter, I'd personally report it at a police station if I felt sufficiently aggrieved.

before bf_fanatic was banned from the horse racing forum
we were getting perilously close to the death threat stage

So we should arm British Muslims?

Well, it should make for an interesting summer (sic)

Well, I can't speak for your gun room

I believe you Boris...somebody has had to arming the rebels for the last two years.

We are being lying lied to as usual, the war is of course, much more between the Shias(the Government)
and the Rebels(Sunnis) than any claimed fight for freedom

Common sense says this country should keep clear(but we wont)

and I still feel all this anti Islamic foreign policy must spill over into our own society

Ordinary people cant differentiate between shades of Muslim ...they are either good or bad...that is it

Who's up for wearing a burqa and gate crashing?

Who's up for wearing a burqa and gate crashing? 

You might need a time machine as well. The clip is from 2007.

And the event never actually went ahead due to poor ticket sales Magnus.

It's OK Big Woman, I'm not actually expecting you to form an argument.
It would have been much funnier though if yeahyeahwhatever was a bloke and he replied with a feeble "neither, I'm a big man", and with an angry upset face

I actually care for someone as a daughter
...she has problems

I actually think most men and women are decent people at heart...they are just easily led

one could argue religion recognises the different roles men and women must play

men and women are not interchangeable........

anyway evolution will decide this in the end....it always has it's way

I am only sorry the never ending  battle of the sexes has become so vicious
and as you defend women, as you must, as a man,I must defend men

ebulGerry:

Undoubtedly there are some women who will milk being a "helpless victim" for all its worth... and there are men who will go along with it, but I really do think that most people now realise how judgmental it is for either gender to be sterotyped into narrow bands.  For example, when I was growing up (50 now) if a man was a midwife the assumption from some would be that he must be gay, I think if you asked most young people if they thought male midwives were automatically gay they'd think you were being incredibly offensive.  Same goes for women wanting to join the army.  Ditto women who don't have children were considered weird, that's not the case anymore.

as to your comment:
one could argue religion recognises the different roles men and women must play
men and women are not interchangeable........

But religion most certainly doesn't recognise those differences - look at how gays are treated by most religions.  Most religions do its damndest to separate the genders by not allowing them to hold the same office etc.

as to:
I am only sorry the never ending  battle of the sexes has become so vicious and as you defend women, as you must, as a man,I must defend men

I was not speaking out in the defence of woman, I was speaking out in the defence of equality - I apologise if that wasn't clear.

well what is equality..women now wish to do roles
traditionally performed by men...they call that equality
The trouble is men and women are not equal...for my evidence I would use genetics

although of course, some intelligent and able women can perform can perform men's roles,
the majority of women cannot....that is what men are for, they are designed for it.

Men must always run society, but of course women must have input, but only in a support and advisory role.
Women already have a job they have babies, they raise children. In general, they cannot do men's work as well.

We are in the midst of an experiment at the moment, in allowing women so much power in the West.
I don't know how it will end, we will all be dead by then.

Religions come from an earlier time and reflect those values. Women had to spend most their time having babies
because less than half children ever made it adulthood. Also people did not live that long. Once child rearing was over
there was little time left Men hunted, gathered, protected (or made wars on other groups to plunder their resources),
again short life.

The thing is our brains have developed to reflect this. So while science may have relieved women of everlasting
pregnancy. Men and women's minds have not changed. To change the dynamics of our society to power share with women, brings
risks we don't see, becoming too risk adverse is one, hence no smoking in doors, a harmless change but  draconian in my opinion.
I fear some changes  will harm us.

Women probably do need to find something to do with the more free time they have, but doing men's is not one of them in my opinion.

We also ask the wrong question.
The question should be should those with more power mistreat those with less power. The answer to this is of course NO.
Although our economic system encourages this.

Are you fishing

That's one of the most idiotic posts I've seen on here for a good long while!

It's manifestly factually incorrect and about as ethically sound as a heavily armed infant.

I hope he's not saying that to me.

I'd challenge him to a duel at sunrise. but the lazy facker would send his butler at that hour of the day.