+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 34 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 332

Thread: Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

  1. #191
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Sussex

    Posts: 324
    I'm Simon.

    Default

    I don't look at it as being lied to. Clearly we were, but that's politics. But the issue of being lied to was moot as far as a uk involvement in Iraq as we were always going to stand by the side of the Americans and the Americans were going in. I knew this at the time and it was clear Blair was making up or falsifying a legitimate reason when he couldn't join the Americans on a regime change reason, for reasons I mentioned. Politicians were arguing at the time whether there were wmd or not before going in, and it was clearly a politicised premise to hold up an invasion too.

  2. #192
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Manchester, UK

    Posts: 159
    I'm Luke.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe View Post
    The interventions in Libya and Syria were aimed at promoting democracy and 'freedom'. It's worth bearing in mind what the road to Hell is paved with.
    I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this last part is classic conditioning. This was the fig leaf cover story, sure, and no doubt many MPs and people in power were able to get on board with this idea if they resisted the cognitive dissonance with the fact that such interventions have never before in modern history succeeded in bringing democracy and 'freedom' (what does that mean anyway?!). Those wars were fought for cold hard strategic reasons, nothing more or less. The sooner people realise this the easier it becomes to have meaningful conversations about the situation in the ME.

  3. #193
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Manchester, UK

    Posts: 159
    I'm Luke.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamics View Post
    No I can confidently say that a decision of a British man, who was basically little more than a kid, being indoctrinated to kill fellow British citizens has nothing to do with anyone else except him. We all have responsibility for our actions, and to start blaming foreign policy decisions on causing suicide bombers is in poor taste. You think the west caused him to press the button and blow himself up, not a far stretched political and religious ideal he aspired too.
    Why so black and white, this or that?

    Yes, individual responsibility, sure. Yes, radicalisation through religion. Yes, the kid was a gullible idiot. Yes, our foreign policy is perfect recruitment fodder for ISIS.

    I don't understand how anyone could disagree with any of the above statements. I would also add: yes, obvious support and collusion with extremist factions by secret services of UK, US, Saudi, Quatar, Israel et al.

  4. #194
    Join Date: May 2009

    Location: gone away

    Posts: 4,870
    I'm joe.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LC1979 View Post
    I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this last part is classic conditioning. This was the fig leaf cover story, sure, and no doubt many MPs and people in power were able to get on board with this idea if they resisted the cognitive dissonance with the fact that such interventions have never before in modern history succeeded in bringing democracy and 'freedom' (what does that mean anyway?!). Those wars were fought for cold hard strategic reasons, nothing more or less. The sooner people realise this the easier it becomes to have meaningful conversations about the situation in the ME.
    The 'freedom and democracy' bit was for the idealistic young, the Facebook/Twitter/whatever demographic who could feel part of the process of change by 'liking' something on Facebook or 'following' it on Twitter. Older people (essentially the Daily Mail/Express/Sun readership) got the 'these nasty foreigners are out to kill us, it's us or them' message.
    The people in the know would as you say be aware that all of this was just window-dressing.

    I guess part of the reason that some people fell for the idealistic message was that Soviet bloc countries managed the transition from dictatorship to democracy without much bloodshed, so in theory it should have been possible in the Middle East too. Of course, a huge factor in the case of the Soviet bloc was that the USSR simply let its empire fall apart. Had someone like Putin been in charge back then, I doubt it'd have been so (relatively) trouble-free.

  5. #195
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Sussex

    Posts: 324
    I'm Simon.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LC1979 View Post
    Why so black and white, this or that?

    Yes, individual responsibility, sure. Yes, radicalisation through religion. Yes, the kid was a gullible idiot. Yes, our foreign policy is perfect recruitment fodder for ISIS.

    I don't understand how anyone could disagree with any of the above statements. I would also add: yes, obvious support and collusion with extremist factions by secret services of UK, US, Saudi, Quatar, Israel et al.
    black or white on what. I don't believe conspiracy theories for the very reason they are far fetched and I'm not stupid.

  6. #196
    Join Date: May 2009

    Location: gone away

    Posts: 4,870
    I'm joe.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamics View Post
    black or white on what. I don't believe conspiracy theories for the very reason they are far fetched and I'm not stupid.
    This isn't about conspiracy theories, though, it's about actions having (unintended) consequences, and about motives, of both governments and individuals, being mixed or unclear. Do you really believe a bloke from Libya would have set off a bomb in Manchester had there been no UK involvement in his country?

  7. #197
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Manchester, UK

    Posts: 159
    I'm Luke.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamics View Post
    No I can confidently say that a decision of a British man, who was basically little more than a kid, being indoctrinated to kill fellow British citizens has nothing to do with anyone else except him. We all have responsibility for our actions, and to start blaming foreign policy decisions on causing suicide bombers is in poor taste. You think the west caused him to press the button and blow himself up, not a far stretched political and religious ideal he aspired too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamics View Post
    black or white on what
    You were denying a link between US/UK foreign policy and the actions of this Mancunian kid, who you see as wholly and individually responsible. I was saying it's not that simple. No need to bring conspiracy theories into it.

    PS - I hate that derogatory ad hom term. It's already a conspiracy by definition as he clearly​ wasn't acting entirely alone, so I'm simply suggesting that the conspirators may not be who you think they are, or might possibly include unaccountable agents in the field who have an agenda that we may never completely understand.

    If you find that impossible to contemplate, that's fine, but throwing around that term as if it proves something is not helpful, in my opinion.

  8. #198
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Manchester, UK

    Posts: 159
    I'm Luke.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dynamics View Post
    I don't believe conspiracy theories for the very reason they are far fetched and I'm not stupid.
    Well, that's me put back in my box then!

  9. #199
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Sussex

    Posts: 324
    I'm Simon.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe View Post
    This isn't about conspiracy theories, though, it's about actions having (unintended) consequences, and about motives, of both governments and individuals, being mixed or unclear. Do you really believe a bloke from Libya would have set off a bomb in Manchester had there been no UK involvement in his country?
    I believe terrorism is caused by a mix of indoctrination, a political agenda which terrorists latch onto for their own ends and encourage people into the ideal, often people of a different social economic standing and often in developing and less civilised countries which makes it easy to encourage, and very strongly the influence of highly religious Islam which is practised in countries in the region to extremes which are not tolerated by westerners and are often very contrary to our own laws. E.g. Sharia law

    We can't as a civilised society put a simple reason as interfearance in another country for our reasons to have consequences in terrorism which we should somehow foresee with the complex melting pot of issues (as above) which cause these people to blow people up. Also where is personal responsibility in this and the rule of law, which terrorism doesn't have any concept for.

    In any event he wasn't a bloke from Libya. Sure his father lived there but he was a 23 year old British citizen living in Manchester all his life. It wasn't his country. His country was the UK, and he lived in the family home we saw being raided on the tv.

    So when I hear people simplify it and say that it's our western fault for intervention in these countries to overthrow tyrants and despots which is taken for reasons in a democratic society, I really Dispair. Also this argument fails to realise that terrorism by islamists has happened for many many years, before Iraq and Afghanistan, and this gives credence to my argument this terrorism is politicised.

  10. #200
    Join Date: Feb 2017

    Location: Sussex

    Posts: 324
    I'm Simon.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LC1979 View Post
    You were denying a link between US/UK foreign policy and the actions of this Mancunian kid, who you see as wholly and individually responsible. I was saying it's not that simple. No need to bring conspiracy theories into it.

    PS - I hate that derogatory ad hom term. It's already a conspiracy by definition as he clearly​ wasn't acting entirely alone, so I'm simply suggesting that the conspirators may not be who you think they are, or might possibly include unaccountable agents in the field who have an agenda that we may never completely understand.

    If you find that impossible to contemplate, that's fine, but throwing around that term as if it proves something is not helpful, in my opinion.
    I don't think this is a very intelligent thing to say. I'm not saying you aren't intelligent.

    We know very well the distorted reasons why the people blow people up, by strict interpretation of Islam and indoctrination by scholars and political organisations. Not because it hasn't happened before, but because it has happened again and again. Not just here but around the world. It's not then credible to start believing a conspiracy idea we don't understand. We do.

    I do deny a link between foreign policy and this kid, because he has responsibility and so do we to other citizens in our society. To say there is a link is to somehow give legitimacy to a cause of terrorism. Now I'm clearly not saying you agree with terrorism, but if you say our policies caused him to be a terrorist, this basically amounts to this legitimacy and is what IS want in starting an Islamic state or what other organisation want credence for. Or what this bomber wants by the very reason he does what he does in the first place. (He believes he is doing good to a political religious ideal and is a martyr by killing himself and others). That democtraically elected decisions of our government have caused him to be a terrorist, which is quite far flung. Do you not see this.

    We are blowing up IS in Syria to remove IS who are killing thousands of Shia muslims. Now how can this guy go over to Syria, maybe get indoctrinated there if the British jihadis and fanatics haven't done a job on him in the uk already, possibly fight against the Americans and us in bombing IS to stop their killing of these Shia muslims (one supposes he did go over there to fight as reported by the media he was in Syria recently) and then it's our foreign policy decision to stop him wanting to kill Shias and setting up of a barbaric Islamic state, that has somehow been instrumental in causing him to blow people up. This is so far removed from reality. Don't you think it could be all the previous things I mentioned in indoctrination, radical Islam, political agendas, his own gullible personality. Also add into the mix which I did not mention - his own mental health and probably lack of any relations or father figures to watch over him in the uk. His father lives in Libya. Who the hell can he blow someone up and not be mentally ill too.

    We have states like Syria and Assad encouraging terrorism for his own political ends against the west.
    Last edited by Dynamics; 26-05-2017 at 11:06.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 34 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •