Manchester Arena

[Rocco_Jambo]

While reducing resources was crazy I do struggle with the idea it takes 20 people to monitor one person. I think the equation is then that the security services can only properly monitor 50 people at a time.

 

In the days long before sophisticated surveillance equipment and the huge resources of GCHQ you could hire a private detective at modest cost to monitor your spouse to establish whether and if so prove he or she was cheating on you.

 

I know we are talking about something far more complex but a continuous total of over six people (assuming they work a 3 shift system) to monitor one person 24 hours a day?

 

Also I agree locking innocent people isn't the answer but the security services must have known about his trips abroad. There is no suggestion he travelled under a false passport - in fact he seems to have left pretty clear trails. Was he questioned on re-entry?

 

Blaming the Americans for releasing evidence seems a lot like closing the stable door and deflection.

They probably did know about his trips abroad but it's not the security services decision as to whether or not these people get allowed back in the same way it isn't there decision as to whether 1000's of citizens from these same countries this guy visited get let in.

[Maroon Sailor]

If only our glorious PM hadn't gutted the border staff and police when she was home secretary, eh?

Don't worry about it, wee nippy will let everybody in as they are all welcome in Scotland.

[Francis Albert]

They probably did know about his trips abroad but it's not the security services decision as to whether or not these people get allowed back in the same way it isn't there decision as to whether 1000's of citizens from these same countries this guy visited get let in.

I wasn't saying it was their decision who to let in, and anyway you can't not let in a British citizen. What I would have expected is that if someone is on the security services radar then if he leaves for Libya he might be questioned about what he was doing there on re-entry. If he is one who slipped through the net then OK these things happen. If in fact there is no net in the form of a systematic check on terrorist suspects entering the UK after a trip to Libya (or Syria or wherever) then I don't think "lack of resources" is much of an excuse. There can't be that many British citizens making trips to these countries at present.

[Don Dan]

I go abroad 3-4 times a year and whilst its only to Tenerife my passport is checked every time I arrive back. Unless Salman was by passing border control why was his movements not flag up based on the intelligence we supposedly have on him. Or was he going to say France then disappearing over the non existent borders?

[Space Mackerel]

More info regarding MI5 and MI6. Seems like this shit has come back and bitten them on the arse.

 

https://www.newsbud.com/2017/05/25/newsbud-exclusive-manchester-bombing-how-british-intelligence-has-coddled-terrorists/

[Francis Albert]

More info regarding MI5 and MI6. Seems like this shit has come back and bitten them on the arse.

 

https://www.newsbud.com/2017/05/25/newsbud-exclusive-manchester-bombing-how-british-intelligence-has-coddled-terrorists/

You sound kind of gloating.

 

It reads like paranoia and conspiracy theorising to me.

 

MI5 and MI6 are actually masterminding or at least condoning Islamic terrorism as part of the West's strategy? I think ISIS and the rest would find this sort of stuff the work of "useful idiots".

 

And if indeed that is what MI5 and MI6 are doing, how has it come back to bite them on the arse? On this theory surely they would be celebrating their latest success?

[Tars]

What do jihadists really want?

 

[elvoys]

Very interesting article that says MI5 dropped control orders of Libyan fighters allowing them untestricted travel to fight Gadaffi. A lot came from Manchester as the pic shows in article.

 

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Toxic mix of hard leftists and islamists write for that site. CJ Werlman a perfect example.

[elvoys]

What do jihadists really want?

 

The 'anything but' mobs first response is to respond - this is just their propaganda. And then it should slowly dawn...

 

EXACTLY!

 

This very clear interp is what attracts billionaires to give it all up to live in an Afghan cave.

 

The push factor idea of ghettos, foreign policy etc is largely the projection of a post religion west that had come to view everything through a prism of material inequality and injustice.

 

And 50k British downloads of AQs Inspire mag last year.

[joondalupjambo]

I go abroad 3-4 times a year and whilst its only to Tenerife my passport is checked every time I arrive back. Unless Salman was by passing border control why was his movements not flag up based on the intelligence we supposedly have on him. Or was he going to say France then disappearing over the non existent borders?

 

My concern is that there is a far bigger picture here with politicians responsible for failure at virtually every point.  If it comes down to some poor Border Security officer getting pin pointed and blamed for not red lighting this guy then it will be a scandel.  I vote for politicians to look after us and our country and not to take us to war, compound problems at every turn and then try to fob us off with heart breaking speeches and memorials to the dead.  This latest atrocity will be news for a while and then we will go about our business while these tw"ts continue along their merry way.  It is time to have people in power who can solve the problem not piddle about looking grand.

[King prawn]

Some people just crave attention

Some guy at work needed some time to himself because he knew someone who knew someone who knew someone.. It's just attention seeking for the sake of it.

[Tars]

Don't Look Back in Anger sang after the minute silence... painful.

[MacDonald Jardine]

So "we allow" is acceptable? I don't think it's Catholic schools that are causing division here.

Allow is probably the wrong word. How about fund?

In contrast to other faith groups.

[Adam Murray]

What do jihadists really want?

 

A must watch for anyone who thinks this is all the big bad West's fault, or that it's going to go away anytime soon.

[Space Mackerel]

You sound kind of gloating.

 

It reads like paranoia and conspiracy theorising to me.

 

MI5 and MI6 are actually masterminding or at least condoning Islamic terrorism as part of the West's strategy? I think ISIS and the rest would find this sort of stuff the work of "useful idiots".

 

And if indeed that is what MI5 and MI6 are doing, how has it come back to bite them on the arse? On this theory surely they would be celebrating their latest success?

Gloating? Seriously? You must have a screw loose to think that.

 

It's an article going in to some detail about what goes on in the murky world of military intelligence and its consequences.

[elvoys]

Don't Look Back in Anger sang after the minute silence... painful.

If only Churchill had thought of this solution.

 

We will love them on the beaches. We shall light candles on the lighting ground. We shall celebrities guide us in our emotional response till the end. We shall open the borders to our island...

[Space Mackerel]

Toxic mix of hard leftists and islamists write for that site. CJ Werlman a perfect example.

What about the picture in Tripoli, that doesn't exist?

It's pretty clear a hardcore went over and fought against Gadaffi and have now returned to wreck havoc.

 

[luckydug]

If only Churchill had thought of this solution.

 

We will love them on the beaches. We shall light candles on the lighting ground. We shall celebrities guide us in our emotional response till the end. We shall open the borders to our island...

 

If it brings comfort to people affected what harm can it possibly do ?

Would you prefer if there were riots on the street with people running around taking 'justice' into their own hands ?

People still have to co exist with their fellow man. 

[redm]

Don't Look Back in Anger sang after the minute silence... painful.

Painful to watch or painful in a different sort of way?

[elvoys]

If it brings comfort to people affected what harm can it possibly do ?

Would you prefer if there were riots on the street with people running around taking 'justice' into their own hands ?

People still have to co exist with their fellow man.

Nah, but a civilisation that had the balls to think Islam could do with a Life of Brian instead of hugs would be a start.

[Escobar PHM]

If it brings comfort to people affected what harm can it possibly do ?

Would you prefer if there were riots on the street with people running around taking 'justice' into their own hands ?

People still have to co exist with their fellow man. 

He makes a decent point about the conduct of SOME 'celebrities' this week. In SOME cases its been opportunistic, patronising sound bytey look at me empty nonsense. I'm uncomfortable with SOME of them coming out of the woodwork showing what came across as faux compassion quite frankly.

 

Corden in particular made himself look like a bit of an oaf.

[Zico]

Nah, but a civilisation that had the balls to think Islam could do with a Life of Brian instead of hugs would be a start.

Well South Park gave it a go, although they were censored across the globe for it.

[Seymour M Hersh]

When you leave or enter the UK via an airport, Border Security scan your passport, the system logs the time, date and place of your leaving or arrival, from there it's a simple task of matching up which flight you took and to where, so yes the security services should have been abundantly aware where he was going to, for how long and when he came back.

 

He slipped through the net, the question is how many more are also slipping through the net, because I seriously doubt that he was a one off.

 

Did he leave on a direct flight to Libya? Because he certainly came back via at least a couple of other cities and if he's used single fares then it must be pretty much impossible to know where he's headed for unless he's already under surveillance.

[michael_bolton]

What do jihadists really want?

 

 

Harris is far too one-sided and ignores lots of evidence specifically highlighting the political motivations of many terrorists and terror groups (including some of the most well-known) and the massive turning point that the war in Iraq proved to be. Even eye-witnesses to the Paris attacks were able to confirm that the attack was politically linked to the western action in Syria by the attackers themselves.

 

He makes many fair points, but he only makes half the argument. He's a sharp guy and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he's being intellectually dishonest.

 

Many of the problems with what he says are tackled here. https://www.allthink.com/1588464

 

For me the problem lies somewhere in between. There's no question that jihadis have a point of view it's hard for many of us to grasp, but it's also incredibly intellectually difficult to look at the available evidence and conclude that western intervention in the form of World War One, bases in Saudi Arabia, support for brutal dictators in the region, military action in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan have not played a role in creating the problem. They very clearly have. See the Rumsfeld Report of 2004 for further evidence of this that the US gathered themselves.

 

It's not self-loathing, it's not apologistism, it's cold fact that western policies in the region over a very long time have helped create the problem we have today.

[Sarah O]

Don't worry about it, wee nippy will let everybody in as they are all welcome in Scotland.

I'm cringing for you. "Wee Nippy"....

[Tars]

Harris is far too one-sided and ignores lots of evidence specifically highlighting the political motivations of many terrorists and terror groups (including some of the most well-known) and the massive turning point that the war in Iraq proved to be. Even eye-witnesses to the Paris attacks were able to confirm that the attack was politically linked to the western action in Syria by the attackers themselves.

 

He makes many fair points, but he only makes half the argument. He's a sharp guy and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he's being intellectually dishonest.

 

Many of the problems with what he says are tackled here. https://www.allthink.com/1588464

 

For me the problem lies somewhere in between. There's no question that jihadis have a point of view it's hard for many of us to grasp, but it's also incredibly intellectually difficult to look at the available evidence and conclude that western intervention in the form of World War One, bases in Saudi Arabia, support for brutal dictators in the region, military action in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan have not played a role in creating the problem. They very clearly have. See the Rumsfeld Report of 2004 for further evidence of this that the US gathered themselves.

 

It's not self-loathing, it's not apologistism, it's cold fact that western policies in the region over a very long time have helped create the problem we have today.

I don't think anyone would flatly deny that Western policy has had *some* influence, including Harris when pressed, but I just think the left overexaggerate it time and time again.

 

They make out the West to be the true underlying cause of violence in the region (even though sectarian wars have been going on in the Middle East since before we got there). They never, no matter what, call it as a religious problem. It's always the fault of the West. The left don't care about intentions or the true underlying reasons of jihadism, they just want to protect Islam and keep it immune from critiscm.

 

For me when it comes to knowing the true motivations of ISIS, I think ISIS themselves are the best candidate for informing us. Here's a direct quote from them that puts the foreign policy argument at the back of the queue:

 

What?s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

[Maroon Sailor]

I'm cringing for you. "Wee Nippy"....

I cringe for Scotland, every time I hear her having a tantrum like a kid in a supermarket when told they are not getting any sweeties. The real cringefest is that tart Robertson down at Westminster though. I'd be made up if he got emptied from his seat.

[luckydug]

I cringe for Scotland, every time I hear her having a tantrum like a kid in a supermarket when told they are not getting any sweeties. The real cringefest is that tart Robertson down at Westminster though. I'd be made up if he got emptied from his seat.

 

This is the wrong thread for these views.

There is already a GE thread.

Take your petty hatred over there.

[michael_bolton]

I don't think anyone would flatly deny that Western policy has had *some* influence, including Harris when pressed, but I just think the left overexaggerate it time and time again.

 

They make out the West to be the true underlying cause of violence in the region (even though sectarian wars have been going on in the Middle East since before we got there). (1)They never, no matter what, call it as a religious problem. It's always the fault of the West. The left don't care about intentions or the true underlying reasons of jihadism, they just want to protect Islam and keep it immune from critiscm.

 

For me when it comes to knowing the true motivations of ISIS, I think ISIS themselves are the best candidate for informing us. Here's a direct quote from them that puts the foreign policy argument at the back of the queue:

 

(2)What?s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

 

1. These people exist, but I think they are much more few and far between than you're imagining. It's clearly a problem connected with the religion of Islam. However, when asked, most muslims world wide reject violence, so to say it's a violent religion is a very lazy over-generalisation. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ Scroll down for the numbers on the rejection of extremism and violence. The muslim populations statistically most favourable (by a long way) towards violence in the name of Islam live in Palestine and Afghanistan. If that's not evidence for the effect of western policy, then I'm not sure what is.

 

2. I'd be very wary of reading too much into blatant propaganda. For example, historians don't go back through writings and simply accept the reasons given for actions from the horse's mouth. Just because a political group (which they are) say something about their motives, doesn't make that so. Do we immediately believe the Tory party, for example, when they say they want to help working families? The theological aspect of their message is important, as it's a message that ultimately pretty much all muslims agree with. Believe or go to hell. By playing that up they are making themselves appealing in a broader way, sure. Even a muslim who abhors violence will have much theological common ground with an extremist group. But the important thing here is that the theology provides the final push over the line for many who have been primed to become extremist by what they see as a ceaseless list of injustices perpetuated by The West in Islamic countries.

 

This is why Bin Laden became more vocal on the issue of Palestine after 9/11. It was political common ground with a huge swathe of the world's muslims, many of whom have repeatedly said when asked that they view the plight of the Palestinians as the world's leading political problem. Even muslims who didn't instinctively like Bin Laden would find much to agree with him about politically, and in any sphere this goes a long way to legitimising an individual or group.

 

The effect of politics and of western intervention in the region in creating a stream of very angry people is huge. Theology then does the rest, but as shown above, most muslims are not on board with that kind of violence, so theology doesn't satisfactorily explain the problem.

[luckydug]

Nah, but a civilisation that had the balls to think Islam could do with a Life of Brian instead of hugs would be a start.

Truth is you don't have any more idea how to approach this problem than the rest of us. I would rather people came together and supported each other than start some ultra right wing group that only wants to divide people. I understand you would prefer the latter.

[elvoys]

1. These people exist, but I think they are much more few and far between than you're imagining. It's clearly a problem connected with the religion of Islam. However, when asked, most muslims world wide reject violence, so to say it's a violent religion is a very lazy over-generalisation. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/ Scroll down for the numbers on the rejection of extremism and violence. The muslim populations statistically most favourable (by a long way) towards violence in the name of Islam live in Palestine and Afghanistan. If that's not evidence for the effect of western policy, then I'm not sure what is.

 

2. I'd be very wary of reading too much into blatant propaganda. For example, historians don't go back through writings and simply accept the reasons given for actions from the horses mouth. Just because a political group (which they are) say something about their motives, doesn't make that so. Do we immediately believe the Tory party, for example, when they say they want to help working families? The theological aspect of their message is important, as it's a message that ultimately pretty much all muslims agree with. Believe or go to hell. By playing that up they are making themselves appealing in a broader way, sure. Even a muslim who abhors violence will have much theological common ground with an extremist group. But the important thing here is that the theology provides the final push over the line for many who have been primed to become extremist by what they see as a ceaseless list of injustices perpetuated by The West in Islamic countries.

 

This is why Bin Laden became more vocal on the issue of Palestine after 9/11. It was political common ground with a huge swathe of the world's muslims, many of whom have repeatedly said when asked that they view the plight of the Palestinians as the world's leading political problem. Even muslims who didn't instinctively like Bin Laden would find much to agree with him about politically, and in any sphere this goes a long way to legitimising an individual or group.

 

The effect of politics and of western intervention in the region in creating a stream of very angry people is huge. Theology then does the rest, but as shown above, most muslims are not on board with that kind of violence, so theology doesn't satisfactorily explain the problem.

Nigeria and Philippines at a single stroke pretty much refute this thesis. The most powerful and effective expressions of Islam in the world today are the militants and theocrats and even in a minority they change the shape of the religion. See France and the debate over freedom to keep women in bin bags. Its maybe much like no MP Ukip pushed us to Brexit.

 

And then there's welcoming and non interventionist Sweden, Germany and Belgium to consider.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Christianity for all intent is dead in this country.

Islam is the fastest growing.

You may not be excusing him but you are looking to excuse his religion.

Christianity is still violent.

Christian priests abuse.

 

As do all religious people i suppose.

 

Islam excuses in its teachings any crime against non believers.

Its preached.

Its taught in english islamic schools.

 

 

Why cant we treat muslims fairly like everyone else?

Out of interest, What recent examples of Christianity being violent can you you give?

[Maroon Sailor]

This is the wrong thread for these views.

There is already a GE thread.

Take your petty hatred over there.

I didn't bring in the petty hatred in to this thread - have a pop at someone else awrite ?

[michael_bolton]

(1)Nigeria and Philippines at a single stroke pretty much refute this thesis. The most powerful and effective expressions of Islam in the world today are the militants and theocrats and even in a minority they change the shape of the religion. See France and the debate over freedom to keep women in bin bags. Its maybe much like no MP Ukip pushed us to Brexit.

 

And then there's welcoming and (2)non interventionist Sweden, Germany and Belgium to consider.

 

1.Certainly not. Nigeria is a country politically divided along religious grounds. It's a perfect example of western intervention ending in violence. In reality, Nigeria should be at least two separate countries. Probably more. It's western intervention that has created the very problem they have, along with disputes over what happens with the enormous wealth the country holds. The parallels with the Middle East are quite clear. Surprised anyone tries to use Nigeria as an argument against the influence of The West.

 

The Philippines is a situation I'm much less familiar with, to be honest. But even if a couple of countries are outliers, that certainly doesn't change the overall pattern that western intervention (be it perceived theft of resources, military presence, military action, supporting of brutal regimes) has certainly created bitterness. As I said, the Rumsfeld report in 2004 brought the Americans themselves to this very view. As it had previously done in the 1950s.

 

2. Germany and Belgium are not non-interventionist. They are both part of NATO and therefore seen by the terrorists as fair game. An attack on one member is seen as an attack on all, so an attack by one is seen as an attack by all. Meanwhile, Sweden has had troops in Afghanistan. All three fit the political profile. As does any NATO member or sender of military personnel or equipment to the Middle East.

[Bowmans_Boot]

I didn't bring in the petty hatred in to this thread - have a pop at someone else awrite ?

You brought in childish, crass name calling of prominent Scottish politicians to a thread about kids being murdered in order to make a cheap anti SNP dig.

 

You must be proud.

[jack D and coke]

You brought in childish, crass name calling of prominent Scottish politicians to a thread about kids being murdered in order to make a cheap anti SNP dig.

 

You must be proud.

Some people honestly can't help themselves at times it's utterly pathetic. Anything and I mean absolutely anything to get a dig at the SNP.

[Maroon Sailor]

You brought in childish, crass name calling of prominent Scottish politicians to a thread about kids being murdered in order to make a cheap anti SNP dig.

You must be proud.

There has been SNP voters sniping all over this thread. I hit back with one reply about your precious little leader and I'm the bad guy.

 

You can't leave it alone either but make my post here the last on this for the thread.

 

It's over with - now crack on with talking about the events of Monday night.

[Rudy T]

1.Certainly not. Nigeria is a country politically divided along religious grounds. It's a perfect example of western intervention ending in violence. In reality, Nigeria should be at least two separate countries. Probably more. It's western intervention that has created the very problem they have, along with disputes over what happens with the enormous wealth the country holds. The parallels with the Middle East are quite clear. Surprised anyone tries to use Nigeria as an argument against the influence of The West.

 

The Philippines is a situation I'm much less familiar with, to be honest. But even if a couple of countries are outliers, that certainly doesn't change the overall pattern that western intervention (be it perceived theft of resources, military presence, military action, supporting of brutal regimes) has certainly created bitterness. As I said, the Rumsfeld report in 2004 brought the Americans themselves to this very view. As it had previously done in the 1950s.

 

2. Germany and Belgium are not non-interventionist. They are both part of NATO and therefore seen by the terrorists as fair game. An attack on one member is seen as an attack on all, so an attack by one is seen as an attack by all. Meanwhile, Sweden has had troops in Afghanistan. All three fit the political profile. As does any NATO member or sender of military personnel or equipment to the Middle East.

So in your opinion if the west were to pull out of these regions would the violence stop?

[Bowmans_Boot]

There has been SNP voters sniping all over this thread. I hit back with one reply about your precious little leader and I'm the bad guy.

 

You can't leave it alone either but make my post here the last on this for the thread.

 

It's over with - now crack on with talking about the events of Monday night.

It was pathetic, completely lacking in any remote resemblance of respect and you deserve to get a hard time for it.

 

But yes, it is thankfully over.

[michael_bolton]

So in your opinion if the west were to pull out of these regions would the violence stop?

 

Not at all. For two reasons.

 

1) The region has its own internal disputes that would exist anyway.

2) There's enough resentment in the bank. Even if The West left the region completely (an economic impossibility) some factions would continue the violence to try to pull The West back in for their own aims.

 

My point is that those who argue that this is nothing to do with Islam are clearly wrong. However, those who seek to give all the blame to theology and ignore the very real impact that The West has had on the parts of the world where muslims typically live are every bit as misguided.

 

Without wishing to repeat myself again and again, imagine the effect on European views of the Chinese if they had drawn arbitrary borders on our continent, putting together different populations for no reason. Then they had taken many of the resources of the region and backed brutal dictators in Europe to further their national interest. Then, when events in Europe weren't to their liking, they bombed Austria and Switzerland and sent in troops and toppled the governments of these countries. On top of this the Chinese were supporting the maintenance of what is more or less a prison state of Europeans who were trapped in a dangerous strip of land near a well-armed neighbour who was culturally alien to the rest of the continent.

 

I think we'd be a bit fed up with the Chinese. To try to say that kind of behaviour (whether it was right or wrong, I'm not discussing that) doesn't breed hatred and terrorism is a very difficult position to defend.

[Rudy T]

Not at all. For two reasons.

 

1) The region has its own internal disputes that would exist anyway.

2) There's enough resentment in the bank. Even if The West left the region completely (an economic impossibility) some factions would continue the violence to try to pull The West back in for their own aims.

 

My point is that those who argue that this is nothing to do with Islam are clearly wrong. However, those who seek to give all the blame to theology and ignore the very real impact that The West has had on the parts of the world where muslims typically live are every bit as misguided.

I share your opinion which is why I think it's time to call it out for what it is. I saw some of question time last night I cringed every time Andy Burnham fell over himself to make the point that Manchester Muslims are good people. I'm sure most of them are but the very guy who killed 22 women and children was a Manchester Muslim.

 

We are at war and they're not going to stop any time soon even if we withdraw from every Muslim nation on the planet.

That has to be the focal point for discussion.

 

The West have been complicit in helping creating the problem and now a solution has to be found for the sake of innocent civilians. Allowing this to continue and pedalling the same tired lines about not letting them win and to stay United just isn't cutting it any more.

 

Incredibly from a fairly uneducated and ill informed stance the only world leader actually calling it out and trying to get the rest to notice is Donald f'in Trump. Governments need to engage with educated and knowledgeable experts who can set out the landscape, the politics and the beliefs that are driving this and act upon it.

[Maroon Sailor]

I like Trump for the way he is not afraid to speak his mind and says it to people's faces as well . The look on Merkel's and other leaders faces at the NATO summit yesterday says it all when he told them to cough up more.

[elvoys]

1.Certainly not. Nigeria is a country politically divided along religious grounds. It's a perfect example of western intervention ending in violence. In reality, Nigeria should be at least two separate countries. Probably more. It's western intervention that has created the very problem they have, along with disputes over what happens with the enormous wealth the country holds. The parallels with the Middle East are quite clear. Surprised anyone tries to use Nigeria as an argument against the influence of The West.

 

The Philippines is a situation I'm much less familiar with, to be honest. But even if a couple of countries are outliers, that certainly doesn't change the overall pattern that western intervention (be it perceived theft of resources, military presence, military action, supporting of brutal regimes) has certainly created bitterness. As I said, the Rumsfeld report in 2004 brought the Americans themselves to this very view. As it had previously done in the 1950s.

 

2. Germany and Belgium are not non-interventionist. They are both part of NATO and therefore seen by the terrorists as fair game. An attack on one member is seen as an attack on all, so an attack by one is seen as an attack by all. Meanwhile, Sweden has had troops in Afghanistan. All three fit the political profile. As does any NATO member or sender of military personnel or equipment to the Middle East.

Germany, Sweden and Belgiums membership of 'Dar al Harb' somewhat trumps their bit part NATO role. They are seen as Crusaders despite having perhaps the most uncertain version of identity possible.

 

And also, let's flip Corbyn and Chomsky's on its head. What about the LACK of intervention in Mindanao, East Timor, Afghanistan in the 90s?

What about the choice to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Kosovo and and end that Jihadist grievance? What about Gaza's inability to not elect Hamas when autonomy is given to them? What kind of mind wound suggest we left Sinjar alone in 2014 and allowed the wholesale slaughter of Yazidis?

 

A final analogy to underline the moral hypocrisy of Corbyn et al.

 

There is no De Klerk in late 80s SA but rather a apartheid proud white nationalist who squashes all dissent amongst ANC, Zulus etc with utter brutality - mass graves, acid baths the lot. The west against huge public pressure (from those who believe it is a matter for SA to sort and will only enflame domestic white sypremacists) intervenes militarily, facilitating democratic elections to which Nelson Mandela claims victory and effectively control for the black majority.

 

However during those elections, the disbanded Afrikaan militias murder scores to cow democracy and show the black majority what their 'rightful' , historic place was. A fellow white supremacist from Zimbabwe decides to cross the border and really ignite a racial civil war with the most outrageous atrocities on the black majority. Western contractors trying to rebuild the countrys infrastructure are beheaded on camera. Although this guy is eventually stopped, he inspires floods of educated, white supremacists acroos the globe to come to SA to join the militias and continue this insurgence, claiming back swathes of the country and neighbouring Botswana based on reinvigorated ideas of 'lebensraum'.

 

This is almost exactly what happened in Iraq but insert Saddam, Zarqawi, Al Qaeda etc.

 

Now can you imagine if the morally acceptable standpoint was to actually blame the intervention on this supremacist ideology spreading far beyond that event? Or you had an opposition leader who initially backed the initial insurgency (Corbyn in 2003)?

 

Our moral compass is utterly shot.

[Maroon Sailor]

8 men arrested between 18 and 38

 

34 year old woman and 16 year old boy released

[Cade]

Hopkins has parted ways with LBC

 

[michael_bolton]

Germany, Sweden and Belgiums membership of 'Dar al Harb' somewhat trumps their bit part NATO role. They are seen as Crusaders despite having perhaps the most uncertain version of identity possible.

 

And also, let's flip Corbyn and Chomsky's on its head. What about the LACK of intervention in Mindanao, East Timor, Afghanistan in the 90s?

What about the choice to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Kosovo and and end that Jihadist grievance? What about Gaza's inability to not elect Hamas when autonomy is given to them? What kind of mind wound suggest we left Sinjar alone in 2014 and allowed the wholesale slaughter of Yazidis?

 

A final analogy to underline the moral hypocrisy of Corbyn et al.

 

There is no De Klerk in late 80s SA but rather a apartheid proud white nationalist who squashes all dissent amongst ANC, Zulus etc with utter brutality - mass graves, acid baths the lot. The west against huge public pressure (from those who believe it is a matter for SA to sort and will only enflame domestic white sypremacists) intervenes militarily, facilitating democratic elections to which Nelson Mandela claims victory and effectively control for the black majority.

 

However during those elections, the disbanded Afrikaan militias murder scores to cow democracy and show the black majority what their 'rightful' , historic place was. A fellow white supremacist from Zimbabwe decides to cross the border and really ignite a racial civil war with the most outrageous atrocities on the black majority. Western contractors trying to rebuild the countrys infrastructure are beheaded on camera. Although this guy is eventually stopped, he inspires floods of educated, white supremacists acroos the globe to come to SA to join the militias and continue this insurgence, claiming back swathes of the country and neighbouring Botswana based on reinvigorated ideas of 'lebensraum'.

 

This is almost exactly what happened in Iraq but insert Saddam, Zarqawi, Al Qaeda etc.

 

Now can you imagine if the morally acceptable standpoint was to actually blame the intervention on this supremacist ideology spreading far beyond that event? Or you had an opposition leader who initially backed the initial insurgency (Corbyn in 2003)?

 

Our moral compass is utterly shot.

 

I'm struggling to get a coherent point from that.

 

Your first point about Germany, Sweden and Belgium is simply you being selective. You're disregarding the fact that all have joined in military intervention in the Middle East recently, simply because it doesn't fit your agenda. It's clearly very relevant to what's going on. Dismissing it does you no service.

 

Dar el harb refers to the entire non-Muslim world. It applies equally to South America, for example. Yet, all the countries you mentioned are involved in what is seen as occupation and aggression. You'd have a point if the countries being attacked were non-Muslim and non-interventionist. But they're not. They are interventionist. On this point, you're just wrong.

 

You seem to be arguing that because The West has not intervened in every Islamic country in every decade then the (numerous and harmful) interventions somehow don't have any impact.

 

And your apartheid analogy missed out the bit where The West condoned the actions of the brutal dictator. People in the Middle East especially are very aware of the extent to which some of their worst leaders have been propped up by The West.

 

Nobody is arguing that there is not a religious element to this problem (nobody I've noticed on here anyway) but it just seems frankly bizarre that people would try to claim that The West's actions in other parts of the world have not created the kind of resentment that feeds terrorism. They very clearly have. I'm baffled as to how anyone could argue otherwise. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history.

[John Findlay]

The guy was known to the security services. At least it wasn't a total random.

 

They need to be given more resources and staff in order to gather evidence on known persons and secure convictions before they get the chance to commit atrocities.

 

We shouldn't be reducing numbers of police and intelligence agents in this current climate. It's dangerous.

 

Simply locking people up because of a possible suspicion of intent is never the answer. They'll just end up being released due to lack of evidence and rewarded massive sums for wrongful imprisonment.

 

The Rule of Law must be followed, and that means increasing spending on police and intelligence.

Still prevention is better than cure.

[michael_bolton]

Still prevention is better than cure.

 

I'd argue locking up members of a specific community whether they're guilty or not will not act as a preventative measure long-term. Quite the opposite.

[John Findlay]

I'd argue locking up members of a specific community whether they're guilty or not will not act as a preventative measure long-term. Quite the opposite.

Who said anything about locking them up.

[Governor Tarkin]

Bolton and elvoys both making good points.