Manchester Arena explosion.

ToneControl

Brad said:

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. 

fair enough, it's a sad topic

for anyone else who's reading:
we can't do anything about whose ancestors persecuted who, or whose government did something crappy a decade or more ago. No sane person can hold kids from a country responsible for acts of their country recently or years or a millennia ago, least of all carrying out a death sentence on them

The specific problem we have is how specific groups react to injustices, real or not
At the minute, we find a few crazy Christians in the US attacking abortion clinics,
and there's always a few bits of countries that want independence
However, I genuinely think there is a particular problem with a subsection of Islam at present, that is not simply a predictable reaction to recent events

ToneControl

For those of you not in Manchester, this was nice to see being reported:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/muslims-march-to-manchester-arena-13100687

Heartfeltdawn

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

Afghanistan: the MAK fought the Russians for several years with backing from various sources including America. This started under Jimmy Carter's reign and continued with the Reagan Doctrine, a program attacking Communism on a global basis. When the Soviets agreed to withdraw, they raised concerns that their withdrawal would cause instability and allow Pakistani-backed militia groups keen on Islamic power into the area. So Afghanistan certainly did not fall to the Taliban before the West intervened. The West, predominantly America, had a bloody big hand in Afghanistan way before the Taliban came to power. Try this from 1989 in the Washington Post. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/02/10/playing-out-the-reagan-doctrine/0453de16-d98a-49c3-bd9e-0be1fdaf5ef9/?utm_term=.83898b1df40d

No, the Germans didn't launch suicide bomb attacks after WWII. It did however get mighty pissed with what happened with the Treaty of Versailles, held it back for a few years, and then came out rather unsportingly come the 1930's. 

Libya is hugely complex. In 1981 the UK were on good terms with Gaddafi. He was on Thatcher's Xmas card list along with Uncle Saddam. Lockerbie, oil, and the bombing of Tripoli all added up to a bonkers level of backwards and forwards diplomacy over the years, and that's then Blair came along. 2011 transcripts show that Gaddafi warned that his regime falling would mean jihadists getting involved. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/gaddafi-warned-blair-of-threat-from-opening-door-to-al-qaida

And this is what we've seen all over the place. If you topple one despotic entity or group, there are more prepared to get involved who then up the ante. Iraq, Afghanistan. Libya. 

Now I am in no way claiming that everything is the fault of Western powers, as you put it. But it is idiotic to deny that policies we either created or supported in overseas lands have been a factor. 

fftc

Heartfeltdawn said:

And this is what we've seen all over the place. If you topple one despotic entity or group, there are more prepared to get involved who then up the ante. Iraq, Afghanistan. Libya. 

Now I am in no way claiming that everything is the fault of Western powers, as you put it. But it is idiotic to deny that policies we either created or supported in overseas lands have been a factor. 

Indeed. Have a wis.

There are parts of the world that would struggle for stability on their own, without outside influences getting involved. I doubt many would disagree with that argument.
But the lack of stability in a region or country does not necessarily mean that it will spill over into terrorism in this country.
So what has caused Islamist terrorists to want to launch attacks in Britain?
I'll ask again. How many Islamist terrorist attacks took place on British soil before we invaded Iraq?
Is it conceivable that my second question has some relation to my first question? If so, does it make sense to keep following the same foreign policy that has drawn the ire of these nutters in the first place?
I don't think so.