Manchester Arena explosion.

ToneControl

Drew_TNBD said:

Dudes islamic terrorist groups have been terrorising what was known as Christendom for centuries. The crusades were a defense after hundreds of years of aggression.

All true, the battles and conquests of the Crusades were about 20 times less than the Islamic armies achieved

Also the Islamic world still includes countries where slavery is legal. Many others carried on into the 20th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
up to 14m slaves in all, many from Europe
I think 12m African slaves were taken to America

But we like to feel guilty for our history as a successful Empire, and assume that all other cultures were victims
Clearly this is a mistake

Iamnobody

ToneControl said:

Brad said:

ToneControl said:

Drew_TNBD said:

What do people really think will happen if we just pull out of the Middle East (or never went there in the first place) and constantly turned the other cheek. Do you really think we'd just be left alone to our own devices? Absolute fantasy.

I think Afghanistan fell to the Taliban before interventions from the western powers.They are a nasty bunch
Why do people keep wanting to "prove" that everything is the fault of the western powers?
I can't remember Germans launching suicide bomb attacks after ww2 was over

Who is occupying Libya? Did the Uk invade it?
Yet this British man from a Libyan family thought it was justified to murder British kids

Yeah the Taliban were there before we went in. That's why we went in, on the fact/suspicion (delete as appropriate) they funded, supported and housed Bin Laden and it was the base for Al Qaeda. Only, we taught the Taliban everything they Now know about warfare when they were fighting the Soviets...

I don't strictly believe people want to 'prove' everything is the fault of western powers. However a pencil and ruler were taken to a very delicate region with no thought of the consequences. How can we not look complicit?

You're right, the Germans didn't launch suicide bomb attacks at us after the war. (Although they did send their children into battle in the last throes of the war). That didn't stop us absolutely pulverising Dresden though. It was a different time and a different enemy. This isn't a conventional enemy that can be fought in a conventional way. The war on terror isn't against a nation state. 

We didn't invade Libya as such, but Caneron was more than happy to join in the bombing and the overthrow of Gaddaffi... Who Tony Blair was friends with... Which created a power vacuum which has been filled by Isis.

These bombings are being carried by those born in the countries they attack. I think we need to start looking a bit closer to home to try and deal with this. 

I can't remember the last time Hindus were launching terror attacks in the UK, or the Sikhs, or the Jains, or the Buddhists
We occupied a lot of countries. Any Jamaicans or Bajans killing English kids?

How can the non-Muslim population of the UK solve this problem?

What about a Hug a Muslim day?!

Seriously I don't think it is up to the non-Muslim population to solve the problem. It's the Authorities responsibility and the Muslim population...Muslims like to keep things 'in house' they could do more to discourage radicalisation if they really wanted to.

Stronger action against those that preach hate and those that show sympathy. How I don't know but for a start...

Get stuck into the communities that harbour these idiots and expose them. Turn over Mosques that are suspected of being hard line. If those communities are reluctant to do it themselves, it's time for a more heavy handed approach. I don't care if the majority of non radical Muslims get upset or inconvenienced in the process - it's necessary.

Sitting back, and monitoring individuals clearly doesn't work every time - although I realise it has been effective in many cases.

ToneControl

btw I don't want to see internment and troops on the streets again

Drew_TNBD

Looking like there is a link of some kind to people in Nuneaton. That's where I'm from, bit weird to see this emerging.

Brad

ToneControl said:

Brad said:

ToneControl said:

Drew_TNBD said:

What do people really think will happen if we just pull out of the Middle East (or never went there in the first place) and constantly turned the other cheek. Do you really think we'd just be left alone to our own devices? Absolute fantasy.

I think Afghanistan fell to the Taliban before interventions from the western powers.They are a nasty bunch
Why do people keep wanting to "prove" that everything is the fault of the western powers?
I can't remember Germans launching suicide bomb attacks after ww2 was over

Who is occupying Libya? Did the Uk invade it?
Yet this British man from a Libyan family thought it was justified to murder British kids

Yeah the Taliban were there before we went in. That's why we went in, on the fact/suspicion (delete as appropriate) they funded, supported and housed Bin Laden and it was the base for Al Qaeda. Only, we taught the Taliban everything they Now know about warfare when they were fighting the Soviets...

I don't strictly believe people want to 'prove' everything is the fault of western powers. However a pencil and ruler were taken to a very delicate region with no thought of the consequences. How can we not look complicit?

You're right, the Germans didn't launch suicide bomb attacks at us after the war. (Although they did send their children into battle in the last throes of the war). That didn't stop us absolutely pulverising Dresden though. It was a different time and a different enemy. This isn't a conventional enemy that can be fought in a conventional way. The war on terror isn't against a nation state. 

We didn't invade Libya as such, but Caneron was more than happy to join in the bombing and the overthrow of Gaddaffi... Who Tony Blair was friends with... Which created a power vacuum which has been filled by Isis.

These bombings are being carried by those born in the countries they attack. I think we need to start looking a bit closer to home to try and deal with this. 

I can't remember the last time Hindus were launching terror attacks in the UK, or the Sikhs, or the Jains, or the Buddhists
We occupied a lot of countries. Any Jamaicans or Bajans killing English kids?

How can the non-Muslim population of the UK solve this problem?

No, neither can I, but I can remember when the IRA have. We're talking about Islamic extremism here. When was the last time we turned those countries upside down with regime change, are those regions any more or less volatile than the Middle East? The region is a wasps nest of conflict. Don't get me wrong, that's no justification for these atrocities at all but it's a contributing factor surely? Or do you not think Western foreign policy has been a contributing factor?

Please don't confuse me saying we need to look closer to home as saying it's just down to the non-Muslim population to sort out. I'm saying surely the situation needs to be sorted here first? Simply dropping more bombs on foreign lands doesn't seem to be working when the perpetrators of these atrocities are born and raised in our society. 

But I don't think passing the buck to the Muslim community to sort it out is enough. An us and them mentality is only going to create further division. Of course the Muslim community needs to seriously and urgently address its problems, but the authorities and society as a whole needs to work together as whether anyone likes it or not, this is the situation we're all in. What is the alternative? If you have an alternative I'd genuinely like to hear it.

Let's face it, we're all full of shit here. Instead of pontificating about the situation that is far more complex than our stations can comprehend and sincere apologies if I'm mistaken, what are any of us doing to try and help the situation apart from squabbling about it on a guitar forum? I know I'm not doing nearly enough...

I've just watched Colin Parry on Question Time, an inspirational man.

Tavernor

Know exactly what you mean, but having a healthy discussion is better than doing nothing at all. There have been a lot of viewpoints expressed and I'd imagine most of us who have read the thread have either learned something new or re-evaluated their views to some extent. Same thing as when you ask someone a question out loud the answer can suddenly smack you in the face. I've been 100% confident about things and 100% wrong enough times to value other peoples perspectives. Fairly common argument is that education is a big part of the solution, things like this thread are just that. It is a drop in the ocean though.

ToneControl

Brad said:

ToneControl said:

I can't remember the last time Hindus were launching terror attacks in the UK, or the Sikhs, or the Jains, or the Buddhists
We occupied a lot of countries. Any Jamaicans or Bajans killing English kids?

How can the non-Muslim population of the UK solve this problem?

No, neither can I, but I can remember when the IRA have. We're talking about Islamic extremism here. When was the last time we turned those countries upside down with regime change, are those regions any more or less volatile than the Middle East? The region is a wasps nest of conflict. Don't get me wrong, that's no justification for these atrocities at all but it's a contributing factor surely? Or do you not think Western foreign policy has been a contributing factor?

Please don't confuse me saying we need to look closer to home as saying it's just down to the non-Muslim population to sort out. I'm saying surely the situation needs to be sorted here first? Simply dropping more bombs on foreign lands doesn't seem to be working when the perpetrators of these atrocities are born and raised in our society. 

But I don't think passing the buck to the Muslim community to sort it out is enough. An us and them mentality is only going to create further division. Of course the Muslim community needs to seriously and urgently address its problems, but the authorities and society as a whole needs to work together as whether anyone likes it or not, this is the situation we're all in. What is the alternative? If you have an alternative I'd genuinely like to hear it.

The problem is that 10% to 20% of Muslims have some measure of support for people committing this sort of mass-murder of innocents. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a similar proportion of each tribe in Northern Ireland had a similar attitude during the violence there, i.e.  "well that's a justifiable reaction to xyz that the other side or the army did".
I don't think that the actions of those outside those 2 warring tribes in Northern Ireland had much influence at all in ending it, other than facilitating a peace agreement after those communities were becoming more uncomfortable with the killings (i.e. Enniskillen). 

For this reason, I don't think non-Muslims in the UK can do very much to stop these mass murders. Non-Muslims could do a lot to make it worse though. It's perfectly possible that any or all of the following could lead us into an English version of the "troubles":

• internment of suspicious-looking Muslims, 
• large-scale hostility towards "nice normal" Muslims
• soldiers doing policing clumsily and killing civilians,
• an anti-Muslim paramilitary attacking Muslim schools, mosques, shops
• Muslim ghettos / tribal areas (we have these already)
• Muslim-only schools, zero integration (we have this already) 

What's different with this violence now is that:

• the violence and killings are explicitly justified by religious doctrine
• The idea of a "suicide bomber" as a heroic saintly figure wiping out former sins is too attractive to many (especially it seems, those with convictions and a history of sins) 
• there's no clear objective to this violence within the UK, no one is asking for an independent Muslim state within the UK. This is presumably just violence against another culture to express hatred, and to try to separate "nice normal" Muslims from the rest of UK society

TheBigDipper

Drew_TNBD said:

Dudes islamic terrorist groups have been terrorising what was known as Christendom for centuries. The crusades were a defense after hundreds of years of aggression.

I read this on Facebook yesterday - word for word. I seem to remember the American author offered to solve our security problem for us. All he needed was a 9mm and few good old boys... 

We need to stop fighting the wars of yesterday and focus on what's happening today.

Drew_TNBD

TheBigDipper said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Dudes islamic terrorist groups have been terrorising what was known as Christendom for centuries. The crusades were a defense after hundreds of years of aggression.

I read this on Facebook yesterday - word for word. I seem to remember the American author offered to solve our security problem for us. All he needed was a 9mm and few good old boys... 

We need to stop fighting the wars of yesterday and focus on what's happening today.

So instead of taking my comments in good faith and maybe exploring the issue, you're just going to link me to some gun nutter you saw on facebook?

Fuck off.

Brad

Tavernor said:

Know exactly what you mean, but having a healthy discussion is better than doing nothing at all. There have been a lot of viewpoints expressed and I'd imagine most of us who have read the thread have either learned something new or re-evaluated their views to some extent. Same thing as when you ask someone a question out loud the answer can suddenly smack you in the face. I've been 100% confident about things and 100% wrong enough times to value other peoples perspectives. Fairly common argument is that education is a big part of the solution, things like this thread are just that. It is a drop in the ocean though.

100% agree. Discussion is absolutely vital but it only gets so far particularly when it's only within the same demographic be it white men that play guitar or Muslim people that remove themselves from mainstream society. We all agree that this needs to end, but how can we find solutions when we can't find common ground on the causes and potential solutions? The causes will be everything detailed in this thread plus more than we can probably ever comprehend. So these terrorists are getting the exact results they want. 

I could very well be wrong and I will gladly apologise if I am, but there seem to be voices that don't want to hear that Western interference has contributed to these horrors. I'm not naive enough to think that it's just the West that has caused these problems. The region has been a wasps nest of trouble for decades, centuries and the Muslum community need to address this. 

I live in Salford (didn't grow up here though) a very predominantly white working class area save for a pretty large Jewish community in Broughton. I went to a very diverse high school though so my experience is very different from the person who feels a complete stranger in their own country. But I've never set foot in a Mosque, Synagogue or Gurdwara etc. In my entire life I've been in a church more for work related reasons than personal, which even then hasn't been often.

It is a drop in the ocean, but personally speaking I feel I could do a lot more just
to try and learn about and integrate with a group (all groups actually) of our society. Could that help things on some very tiny scale or would I just be trying to make myself feel better? I've absolutely no idea...

ToneControl said:

Brad said:

ToneControl said:

I can't remember the last time Hindus were launching terror attacks in the UK, or the Sikhs, or the Jains, or the Buddhists
We occupied a lot of countries. Any Jamaicans or Bajans killing English kids?

How can the non-Muslim population of the UK solve this problem?

No, neither can I, but I can remember when the IRA have. We're talking about Islamic extremism here. When was the last time we turned those countries upside down with regime change, are those regions any more or less volatile than the Middle East? The region is a wasps nest of conflict. Don't get me wrong, that's no justification for these atrocities at all but it's a contributing factor surely? Or do you not think Western foreign policy has been a contributing factor?

Please don't confuse me saying we need to look closer to home as saying it's just down to the non-Muslim population to sort out. I'm saying surely the situation needs to be sorted here first? Simply dropping more bombs on foreign lands doesn't seem to be working when the perpetrators of these atrocities are born and raised in our society. 

But I don't think passing the buck to the Muslim community to sort it out is enough. An us and them mentality is only going to create further division. Of course the Muslim community needs to seriously and urgently address its problems, but the authorities and society as a whole needs to work together as whether anyone likes it or not, this is the situation we're all in. What is the alternative? If you have an alternative I'd genuinely like to hear it.

The problem is that 10% to 20% of Muslims have some measure of support for people committing this sort of mass-murder of innocents. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a similar proportion of each tribe in Northern Ireland had a similar attitude during the violence there, i.e.  "well that's a justifiable reaction to xyz that the other side or the army did".
I don't think that the actions of those outside those 2 warring tribes in Northern Ireland had much influence at all in ending it, other than facilitating a peace agreement after those communities were becoming more uncomfortable with the killings (i.e. Enniskillen). 

For this reason, I don't think non-Muslims in the UK can do very much to stop these mass murders. Non-Muslims could do a lot to make it worse though. It's perfectly possible that any or all of the following could lead us into an English version of the "troubles":

• internment of suspicious-looking Muslims, 
• large-scale hostility towards "nice normal" Muslims
• soldiers doing policing clumsily and killing civilians,
• an anti-Muslim paramilitary attacking Muslim schools, mosques, shops
• Muslim ghettos / tribal areas (we have these already)
• Muslim-only schools, zero integration (we have this already) 

What's different with this violence now is that:

• the violence and killings are explicitly justified by religious doctrine
• The idea of a "suicide bomber" as a heroic saintly figure wiping out former sins is too attractive to many (especially it seems, those with convictions and a history of sins) 
• there's no clear objective to this violence within the UK, no one is asking for an independent Muslim state within the UK. This is presumably just violence against another culture to express hatred, and to try to separate "nice normal" Muslims from the rest of UK society

I completely agree with and respect the points you're making. But regarding the peace process, yes maybe we did just facilitate the peace process and it did need both sides to have had enough of the bloodshed. But at least we got involved to facilitate one. I'm not saying it's going to be a quick, easy fix. But we have to start somewhere. 

But please just answer me these two questions more for my own clarification of your standpoint because I've either missed previous comments or it's just not entirely clear to me (which Is probably the case). Don't worry I'm not gonna be shitty with you or try and change your mind otherwise  

1. Do you think Western Foriegn policy has in any way contributed to the situation and if so to what extent?

2. If non-Muslims can't contribute to solving the problem then it should be up to the Muslim community to sort it. Should we continue as we are and hope the authorities and security services do their best to keep us safe, but running the risk of more atrocities like Monday occurring, while waiting for the Muslim community to have had enough regardless of how long it takes?

Brad

He gets a lot of shit, but Liam Gallagher has announced a gig at the Ritz with all proceeds going to the MEN appeal. 

stickyfiddle

Brad said:

He gets a lot of shit, but Liam Gallagher has announced a gig at the Ritz with all proceeds going to the MEN appeal. 

Haven't people suffered enough?!

Brad

stickyfiddle said:

Brad said:

He gets a lot of shit, but Liam Gallagher has announced a gig at the Ritz with all proceeds going to the MEN appeal. 

Haven't people suffered enough?!

Touché! I'm no fan, but he at least seems to be doing a little more than some other famous sons of Manchester. Then again, it could be shameless (no pun intended) self-promotion...

TheBigDipper

Drew_TNBD said:

TheBigDipper said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Dudes islamic terrorist groups have been terrorising what was known as Christendom for centuries. The crusades were a defense after hundreds of years of aggression.

I read this on Facebook yesterday - word for word. I seem to remember the American author offered to solve our security problem for us. All he needed was a 9mm and few good old boys... 

We need to stop fighting the wars of yesterday and focus on what's happening today.

So instead of taking my comments in good faith and maybe exploring the issue, you're just going to link me to some gun nutter you saw on facebook?

Fuck off.

Word for word - that is the quote I read. Do you normally spell 'defence' as 'defense', then? Do you normally use the word 'Christendom'? 

As it happens, I took his comments in good faith and explored the issue in my own mind yesterday. So your post got my thoughts on the matter - stop fighting the wars of yesterday and focus on what's happening today.

We can learn from history. The Crusades did not help Muslims and Christians get on any better in the long run and it wasn't all the fault of the Muslims at the time, either. They also felt they had a cause to fight for. Most Muslims in the West are as mature about religions place in their world as most Christians are (and all atheists).

The Wahhabist extremists of today are using their warped views to justify political change and influence within their region and beyond. It's not about religion, it's about politics and power. They're using religion to justify actions. Historically, most religions have at some point in their history. Their stories gain traction within our own people born in the UK because there's an environment available to them, where these people can groom Brits who are susceptible to being groomed, and get them to do terrible things in the belief that they are acting for good and that it's justifiable. 

Just treating all Muslims as the enemy is a simple solution for simple people. Suggesting it's always been this way and therefore always will be is quite depressing, to be honest. That's what some people are saying and it seems to justify actions by them that won't help any of us in the long run - no matter how good it makes them feel at the time.

I'm not saying that is your view - not in the slightest - but harking back to the Crusades is fuel for them - and I think there's enough fuel for the flames that are already lit in this world. 

Drew_TNBD

TheBigDipper said:

Drew_TNBD said:

TheBigDipper said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Dudes islamic terrorist groups have been terrorising what was known as Christendom for centuries. The crusades were a defense after hundreds of years of aggression.

I read this on Facebook yesterday - word for word. I seem to remember the American author offered to solve our security problem for us. All he needed was a 9mm and few good old boys... 

We need to stop fighting the wars of yesterday and focus on what's happening today.

So instead of taking my comments in good faith and maybe exploring the issue, you're just going to link me to some gun nutter you saw on facebook?

Fuck off.

Word for word - that is the quote I read. Do you normally spell 'defence' as 'defense', then? Do you normally use the word 'Christendom'?

Yes. I'm 32. I grew up in very Americanized culture. I've been told off on this forum by the little Englanders for using Z in place of S - I spell it defense more often than not, and end up having to correct myself. If I spot it and if I can be bothered.

Christendom is a complex word, but I was using the historical version of it - ie; these places here which were traditionally Christian countries. And I chose the word because specifically that was the context at the time - a long war between the Islamic Ottoman Turkish Empire, and Christendom: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t253/e2

Also I'm incredibly skeptical that someone used the same sentence I did word for word. Even 'dudes' ? Even down to the lack of capitalization on 'Crusades'??

This is also evidence to the fact that when we criticise Islam, we ARE NOT criticising PEOPLE. We are criticizing (sorry, criticising!) IDEAS and the overarching philosophy.

TheBigDipper said:
I'm not saying that is your view - not in the slightest - but harking back to the Crusades is fuel for them - and I think there's enough fuel for the flames that are already lit in this world. 

The entire point of bringing the Crusades up was to illustrate the point that historically this clash between philosophies or religions if you prefer goes very far back. So when people on this very forum bring up very recent historical events in order to explain these current terrorist attrocities, the point is that you can't just arbitrarily take a slice of history and go "this is the stuff that matters, and the rest of it doesn't matter at all" - that's not how humans work.

The truth is, there isn't any single reason as to why these atrocities happen, and the idea that someone could just go LOL at the notion that the Crusades were defensive says way more about their ignorance than it does mine.

TheBigDipper

Drew_TNBD said:

<big snip>

Also I'm incredibly skeptical that someone used the same sentence I did word for word. Even 'dudes' ? Even down to the lack of capitalization on 'Crusades'??

<little snip>

Yes. Word for word - including the capitalisation (or lack of). That's why I thought it was just a lazy cut and paste job. I've just spent 10 minutes trying to find it so you can at least trust me about the coincidence - but without success. The post was on a group I'm not a member of, but some people I know are, and the comment came up on my feed and gave me access to the whole thing. 

Anyone know how to find a FB comment by an FB friend on a post they didn't start on a group you're not a member of? I believe Drew, but I want him to see I didn't just make it up.

Drew_TNBD

TheBigDipper said:

Drew_TNBD said:

<big snip>

Also I'm incredibly skeptical that someone used the same sentence I did word for word. Even 'dudes' ? Even down to the lack of capitalization on 'Crusades'??

<little snip>

Yes. Word for word - including the capitalisation (or lack of). That's why I thought it was just a lazy cut and paste job. I've just spent 10 minutes trying to find it so you can at least trust me about the coincidence - but without success. The post was on a group I'm not a member of, but some people I know are, and the comment came up on my feed and gave me access to the whole thing. 

Anyone know how to find a FB comment by an FB friend on a post they didn't start on a group you're not a member of? I believe Drew, but I want him to see I didn't just make it up.

If you responded to it you can see your own activity log and trace it that way.

Was a closed group? When I google my sentence I only get this thread.

TheBigDipper

Drew_TNBD said:

TheBigDipper said:

Drew_TNBD said:

<big snip>

Also I'm incredibly skeptical that someone used the same sentence I did word for word. Even 'dudes' ? Even down to the lack of capitalization on 'Crusades'??

<little snip>

Yes. Word for word - including the capitalisation (or lack of). That's why I thought it was just a lazy cut and paste job. I've just spent 10 minutes trying to find it so you can at least trust me about the coincidence - but without success. The post was on a group I'm not a member of, but some people I know are, and the comment came up on my feed and gave me access to the whole thing. 

Anyone know how to find a FB comment by an FB friend on a post they didn't start on a group you're not a member of? I believe Drew, but I want him to see I didn't just make it up.

If you responded to it you can see your own activity log and trace it that way.

Was a closed group? When I google my sentence I only get this thread.

No, I just read it all. I don't remember even noticing what the group was called. Searching my friends posts only shows the ones he started. I can't see his activity on posts he's replying to. If you can't find it on Google, I guess the group was 'closed'. 

Just one of those things,I guess. Sorry I got you upset for no reason. There's enough of that knocking about already.

ToneControl

Brad said:

I completely agree with and respect the points you're making. But regarding the peace process, yes maybe we did just facilitate the peace process and it did need both sides to have had enough of the bloodshed. But at least we got involved to facilitate one. I'm not saying it's going to be a quick, easy fix. But we have to start somewhere. 

But please just answer me these two questions more for my own clarification of your standpoint because I've either missed previous comments or it's just not entirely clear to me (which Is probably the case). Don't worry I'm not gonna be shitty with you or try and change your mind otherwise  

1. Do you think Western Foriegn policy has in any way contributed to the situation and if so to what extent?

2. If non-Muslims can't contribute to solving the problem then it should be up to the Muslim community to sort it. Should we continue as we are and hope the authorities and security services do their best to keep us safe, but running the risk of more atrocities like Monday occurring, while waiting for the Muslim community to have had enough regardless of how long it takes?

1. I don't think you can just talk about "western foreign policy" as a thing. Many things during many periods would be a better perspective. Lots of western countries have had many policies over time. Some of them were constructive, some failed, some were misguided. I'd say that the western countries people normally mean when they say this (UK, France, USA) have had policies that have had an effect on the politics of the middle east. Sometimes things didn't work out well. This is the case at the end of any war or Empire. Consider the partition of India. 
What I don't understand is why a British born man from a Libyan family would want to murder British kids because of a war in Iraq, for example. I don't agree with a lot of things the Israeli state does, supported by the USA, but I wouldn't expect a Muslim US citizen from a Pakistani family to blow up a school disco in California  as some direct result.
Middle eastern countries have even weirder policies. The start of Islamic Jihad predates England even being a country, and the constant attempts to infantilise Muslims by saying "it's not their fault, because the Crusaders killed X number of people in 1266", or "France and England caused it all when they drew that border, or create that King". Other ex-colonies do fine without turning into failed states with bloodthirsty sympathisers murdering innocents in the name of their God.

2. Best thing non-Muslims can do is to discourage revenge attacks and be pleasant to Muslims. the state needs to intervene when possible, hopefully without harming or harassing innocent Muslims. But yer, those last 10% - 20% who condone the killings also need to feel sickened before the support for this type of act is eroded

Brad

ToneControl said:

Brad said:

I completely agree with and respect the points you're making. But regarding the peace process, yes maybe we did just facilitate the peace process and it did need both sides to have had enough of the bloodshed. But at least we got involved to facilitate one. I'm not saying it's going to be a quick, easy fix. But we have to start somewhere. 

But please just answer me these two questions more for my own clarification of your standpoint because I've either missed previous comments or it's just not entirely clear to me (which Is probably the case). Don't worry I'm not gonna be shitty with you or try and change your mind otherwise  

1. Do you think Western Foriegn policy has in any way contributed to the situation and if so to what extent?

2. If non-Muslims can't contribute to solving the problem then it should be up to the Muslim community to sort it. Should we continue as we are and hope the authorities and security services do their best to keep us safe, but running the risk of more atrocities like Monday occurring, while waiting for the Muslim community to have had enough regardless of how long it takes?

1. I don't think you can just talk about "western foreign policy" as a thing. Many things during many periods would be a better perspective. Lots of western countries have had many policies over time. Some of them were constructive, some failed, some were misguided. I'd say that the western countries people normally mean when they say this (UK, France, USA) have had policies that have had an effect on the politics of the middle east. Sometimes things didn't work out well. This is the case at the end of any war or Empire. Consider the partition of India. 
What I don't understand is why a British born man from a Libyan family would want to murder British kids because of a war in Iraq, for example. I don't agree with a lot of things the Israeli state does, supported by the USA, but I wouldn't expect a Muslim US citizen from a Pakistani family to blow up a school disco in California  as some direct result.
Middle eastern countries have even weirder policies. The start of Islamic Jihad predates England even being a country, and the constant attempts to infantilise Muslims by saying "it's not their fault, because the Crusaders killed X number of people in 1266", or "France and England caused it all when they drew that border, or create that King". Other ex-colonies do fine without turning into failed states with bloodthirsty sympathisers murdering innocents in the name of their God.

2. Best thing non-Muslims can do is to discourage revenge attacks and be pleasant to Muslims. the state needs to intervene when possible, hopefully without harming or harassing innocent Muslims. But yer, those last 10% - 20% who condone the killings also need to feel sickened before the support for this type of act is eroded

Thanks for your thoughts, it's appreciated. 

1. I don't understand why anyone would want to commit murder either. And there is no justification. And whilst other countries and groups of people have been occupied and don't behave in this way (you cite the partitioning of India) I just don't think it's that black and white. If only it was that simple eh?
 
I'd argue that the Iraq war has been a catalyst for the escalation of the problem, and it is clear that there were warnings before the invasion of Iraq (93 world trade centre bombings etc). Perhaps this British man of a Libyan family has been mentally vulnerable, conditioned to hate the West, seen what has been going on in that part of the world since Iraq and perceives it as an overall attack on Islam? I really don't know what goes on in the twisted minds of these people. 

2. I agree with most of that and I get why you'd see it that way, particularly if it worked in N.I peace process. IMO I think we're dealing with a different group of people that may need a different approach. 

I guess we're all on the same page, we just differ on the reasons why and how to get to a solution. I think I've said everything I can on it anyways so I'm going to respectfully bow out of this conversation.