Foreign policy and terrorism in UK - any connection?

[gadgetmac]

The 7/7 bombers motives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4444358.stm

"Muslim suffering" not "Isis driven world domination".

[skyrover]

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

I'm going to go back to my argument that nobody is listening to what the terrorists themselves are saying, backed up by most of the posts on this thread.

These 2, why did they kill Lee Rigby?

|https://thumbsnap.com/JO20TXbM[/url]

Anyone remember the live comments they made after the attack whilst waiting for the police to arrive. "Muslim children being killed abroad" etc.[url]

Asked if the attack was designed to intimidate the public, Adebolajo said: 'The truth is this, the Government and the British public have become aware of Jihad over the past years, a lot of people know the only reason it is occuring is because of foreign policy.'

Are we listening yet? Until we do it'll never end.

Its just an excuse, window dressing. The number of muslim children being killed by the west is as nothing to those kids being killed in muslim versus muslim conflict in the ME. So why do these guys make it special if the west (trying to help the non-jihadi muslims) cause few deaths but the muslims (particularly the jihadi ones) get a free pass?

You mean you don't like the reasons? Do you think they all collude and come up with a foreign policy mantra?

And we've just caused a few" deaths?

s2art exemplifies completely the mentality that allows this to continue. He doesn't listen to the other side but then goes even further by installing his own view on why the killer(s) do what they do. It's breathtaking. It's like telling me why I really won't paint my bedroom this weekend even though I've explained it to the missus twice already. Those who don't listen don't learn.

And wrong. Try listening to what ISIS actually says on the subject. Try thinking about why countries such as Sweden, Belgium or Spain have suffered terrorist attacks (what did their foreign policy have to do with it?). Go back a few pages and read the analysis from Freedland. Conclusion is that they would attack us whatever our foreign policy is. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Completely correct.

It a falls under the mantra of "Taqiyya"

Lying in order to advance the cause of Islam.

They couldn't care less if a few Muslims die due to western airstrikes or suchlike. They kill far more themselves.

What it is however, is useful ammunition to spin a yarn about the "evil west", thus sowing turmoil and confusion among useful idiots in respective Western countries.

[s2art]

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

And I am saying the reasons given (by some) are merely window dressing

They are most certainly not window dressing. That is you overlaying your own prejudices and preconceptions onto the situation. If you think that he's still playing mind games when he's about seperate his own head from his shoulders then you are a fool. He's probably being more honest in those seconds than he's ever been in his life.

ISIS are irrelevent at that point in time, they will use him for their own ends in the days following, but only what the terrorist believes matters and he tells you what that is and what he's dying for. I've no doubt the terrorist would like to see a world of only Muslims just like ISIS but thats not usually the motivation to kill little girls in a manchester concert. At that point their motivations are harder and more vengeful. Show me attacks carried out here where the motivations were other than that.

And wrong again. Read Freedland, or Douglas Murray or any of the people who have studied the subject in depth.

[s2art]

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

When one of these terrorists stands in front of a queue of people and detonates a bomb and we find a note from him saying he did it to further the cause of Islamic rule in the UK or elsewhere then yes, thats exactly why he did it.

Usually, they don't say that.

They describe a grievance they have.

I'm not saying that grievance is right or wrong I'm saying we aint listening.

And I am saying the reasons given (by some) are merely window dressing. Who the hell finds that he disagrees with foreign policy then decides to blow himself up and wants to take a load of young women with him as a protest? It requires much deeper motivation to do that then a simple disapproval, or even extreme distaste, of foreign policy actions. Just listen to what ISIS (and other jihadi groups) actually say about why they act.

How many more attacks on UK soil before you get angry enough to take action?

Angry enough against whom? It will take more than anything I can do to eliminate the jihadists. All we can do is vote in politicians with good policies. It would help if we/they actually understood that there is a sect of muslims who simply want to destroy the West and have us all convert to Islam and do not care how they might achieve it. And that past foreign policy is almost an irrelevance to them.

[Alpinestars]

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

And I am saying the reasons given (by some) are merely window dressing

They are most certainly not window dressing. That is you overlaying your own prejudices and preconceptions onto the situation. If you think that he's still playing mind games when he's about seperate his own head from his shoulders then you are a fool. He's probably being more honest in those seconds than he's ever been in his life.

ISIS are irrelevent at that point in time, they will use him for their own ends in the days following, but only what the terrorist believes matters and he tells you what that is and what he's dying for. I've no doubt the terrorist would like to see a world of only Muslims just like ISIS but thats not usually the motivation to kill little girls in a manchester concert. At that point their motivations are harder and more vengeful. Show me attacks carried out here where the motivations were other than that.

And wrong again. Read Freedland, or Douglas Murray or any of the people who have studied the subject in depth.

Why not just get it from the horses' mouths? ISIS, Bin Laden's AQ and the individual terrorists.

Are you really ignoring their views and statements?

[s2art]

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

And I am saying the reasons given (by some) are merely window dressing

They are most certainly not window dressing. That is you overlaying your own prejudices and preconceptions onto the situation. If you think that he's still playing mind games when he's about seperate his own head from his shoulders then you are a fool. He's probably being more honest in those seconds than he's ever been in his life.

ISIS are irrelevent at that point in time, they will use him for their own ends in the days following, but only what the terrorist believes matters and he tells you what that is and what he's dying for. I've no doubt the terrorist would like to see a world of only Muslims just like ISIS but thats not usually the motivation to kill little girls in a manchester concert. At that point their motivations are harder and more vengeful. Show me attacks carried out here where the motivations were other than that.

And wrong again. Read Freedland, or Douglas Murray or any of the people who have studied the subject in depth.

Why not just get it from the horses' mouths? ISIS, Bin Laden's AQ and the individual terrorists.

Are you really ignoring their views and statements?

That is getting it from the horses mouth. Go back in the thread, ISIS has been quoted. They dont care if we bomb then or not. Its not their motivation., They just want to destroy us or convert us to Islam.

[gadgetmac]

s2art said:

Angry enough against whom? It will take more than anything I can do to eliminate the jihadists. All we can do is vote in politicians with good policies. It would help if we/they actually understood that there is a sect of muslims who simply want to destroy the West and have us all convert to Islam and do not care how they might achieve it. And that past foreign policy is almost an irrelevance to them.

Yes and every solitary terrorist who shreds himself into a thousand pieces does so thinking that he's going to bring down the culture and lifestyle of billions of people in the west whilst ushering in world domination for his middle eastern sect with that simple act. He's not angry at all at what the west has done, none of them are, he and his fellow ISIS colleagues have got a plan to transform the UK and it's good 'un.

If killing 3,000 didn't do it on 9/11 he's now thinking that was too big...whats needed is less victims not more. 20 to 100 ought to do it, that'll surely bring their infidel ways to an end and bring about strict islamic practice for the whole UK.

[Alpinestars]

s2art said:

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

And I am saying the reasons given (by some) are merely window dressing

They are most certainly not window dressing. That is you overlaying your own prejudices and preconceptions onto the situation. If you think that he's still playing mind games when he's about seperate his own head from his shoulders then you are a fool. He's probably being more honest in those seconds than he's ever been in his life.

ISIS are irrelevent at that point in time, they will use him for their own ends in the days following, but only what the terrorist believes matters and he tells you what that is and what he's dying for. I've no doubt the terrorist would like to see a world of only Muslims just like ISIS but thats not usually the motivation to kill little girls in a manchester concert. At that point their motivations are harder and more vengeful. Show me attacks carried out here where the motivations were other than that.

And wrong again. Read Freedland, or Douglas Murray or any of the people who have studied the subject in depth.

Why not just get it from the horses' mouths? ISIS, Bin Laden's AQ and the individual terrorists.

Are you really ignoring their views and statements?

That is getting it from the horses mouth. Go back in the thread, ISIS has been quoted. They dont care if we bomb then or not. Its not their motivation., They just want to destroy us or convert us to Islam.

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

[s2art]

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

And I am saying the reasons given (by some) are merely window dressing

They are most certainly not window dressing. That is you overlaying your own prejudices and preconceptions onto the situation. If you think that he's still playing mind games when he's about seperate his own head from his shoulders then you are a fool. He's probably being more honest in those seconds than he's ever been in his life.

ISIS are irrelevent at that point in time, they will use him for their own ends in the days following, but only what the terrorist believes matters and he tells you what that is and what he's dying for. I've no doubt the terrorist would like to see a world of only Muslims just like ISIS but thats not usually the motivation to kill little girls in a manchester concert. At that point their motivations are harder and more vengeful. Show me attacks carried out here where the motivations were other than that.

And wrong again. Read Freedland, or Douglas Murray or any of the people who have studied the subject in depth.

Why not just get it from the horses' mouths? ISIS, Bin Laden's AQ and the individual terrorists.

Are you really ignoring their views and statements?

That is getting it from the horses mouth. Go back in the thread, ISIS has been quoted. They dont care if we bomb then or not. Its not their motivation., They just want to destroy us or convert us to Islam.

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

I dont believe their stated reasons as it doesnt explain why countries who have had nothing to do with any hostile foreign policy have also suffered terrorist attacks. Not to mention the coptic christians recently massacred, or any number of foul acts commited by ISIS. I particularly dont believe the reasons given for the Manchester bomber, was he really committing suicide and taking some young women with him in Manchester, England because of American bombing? His reasons were far more theological than that.

[gadgetmac]

Alpinestars said:

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

Exactly. While some people continue to put there own agenda into the terrorists actions rather than listening to the arguments attrocities will continue ad infinitum - and to both sides.

[gadgetmac]

s2art said:

I dont believe their stated reasons as it doesnt explain why countries who have had nothing to do with any hostile foreign policy have also suffered terrorist attacks. Not to mention the coptic christians recently massacred, or any number of foul acts commited by ISIS. I particularly dont believe the reasons given for the Manchester bomber, was he really committing suicide and taking some young women with him in Manchester, England because of American bombing? His reasons were far more theological than that.

"I don't believe this", "I don't believe that", "His reasons were".

Wow. Those night school classes in mind reading are really paying off.

Edited by gadgetmac on Sunday 28th May 18:15

[s2art]

gadgetmac said:

Alpinestars said:

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

Exactly. While some people continue to put there own agenda into the terrorists actions rather than listening to the arguments attrocities will continue ad infinitum - and to both sides.

And until some people recognise that foreign policy is secondary to what motivates ISIS we will never have a good policy for dealing with them.

[s2art]

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

I dont believe their stated reasons as it doesnt explain why countries who have had nothing to do with any hostile foreign policy have also suffered terrorist attacks. Not to mention the coptic christians recently massacred, or any number of foul acts commited by ISIS. I particularly dont believe the reasons given for the Manchester bomber, was he really committing suicide and taking some young women with him in Manchester, England because of American bombing? His reasons were far more theological than that.

Those night school classes in mind reading are really paying off.

Read this;

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438661/believ...

There is plenty more out there and many scholars and experts have worked on the subject.

Edited by s2art on Sunday 28th May 18:18

[Alpinestars]

s2art said:

I dont believe their stated reasons as it doesnt explain why countries who have had nothing to do with any hostile foreign policy have also suffered terrorist attacks. Not to mention the coptic christians recently massacred, or any number of foul acts commited by ISIS. I particularly dont believe the reasons given for the Manchester bomber, was he really committing suicide and taking some young women with him in Manchester, England because of American bombing? His reasons were far more theological than that.

So it's your gut feeling? Do you have any evidence to support it? Because the bar would need to be really high to refute the words of a number of the terrorists and ISIS itself.

Are you aware of the term Grey Zone vis a vis ISIS? I'd suggest you look it up. It would answer some of your questions.

[gadgetmac]

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

I dont believe their stated reasons as it doesnt explain why countries who have had nothing to do with any hostile foreign policy have also suffered terrorist attacks. Not to mention the coptic christians recently massacred, or any number of foul acts commited by ISIS. I particularly dont believe the reasons given for the Manchester bomber, was he really committing suicide and taking some young women with him in Manchester, England because of American bombing? His reasons were far more theological than that.

Those night school classes in mind reading are really paying off.

Read this;

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438661/believ...

There is plenty more out their and many scholars and experts have worked on the subject.

Are you just not reading what people are saying? That article is about ISIS and their motivations, not the bombers as he blasts himself into oblivion. At the point of detonation in a western city the motive is revenge not world domination. Christ, they don't even dominate in their own back yard and that would be their first goal. Attacking Stockholm, Manchester and the like is pure revenge in their eyes.

Edited by gadgetmac on Sunday 28th May 18:28

[Alpinestars]

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

Alpinestars said:

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

Exactly. While some people continue to put there own agenda into the terrorists actions rather than listening to the arguments attrocities will continue ad infinitum - and to both sides.

And until some people recognise that foreign policy is secondary to what motivates ISIS we will never have a good policy for dealing with them.

So now it does have something to do with it?

What motives ISIS and what motivates individual terrorists can be different reasons. And that's demonstrably the case. But you want to ignore it.

[s2art]

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

s2art said:

I dont believe their stated reasons as it doesnt explain why countries who have had nothing to do with any hostile foreign policy have also suffered terrorist attacks. Not to mention the coptic christians recently massacred, or any number of foul acts commited by ISIS. I particularly dont believe the reasons given for the Manchester bomber, was he really committing suicide and taking some young women with him in Manchester, England because of American bombing? His reasons were far more theological than that.

Those night school classes in mind reading are really paying off.

Read this;

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438661/believ...

There is plenty more out their and many scholars and experts have worked on the subject.

Are you just not reading what people are saying? That article is about ISIS. At the point of detonation in a western city the motive is revenge not world demonation. Christ they don't even dominate in their own back yard and that would be their first goal. Attacking Stockholm, Manchester and the like is pure revenge in their eyes.

Yes I think he was ISIS inspired. http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/manchester-bomber-ha...

And ISIS state that foreign policy is secondary to what motivates them. .

[s2art]

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

Alpinestars said:

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

Exactly. While some people continue to put there own agenda into the terrorists actions rather than listening to the arguments attrocities will continue ad infinitum - and to both sides.

And until some people recognise that foreign policy is secondary to what motivates ISIS we will never have a good policy for dealing with them.

So now it does have something to do with it?

What motivates ISIS and what motivates individual terrorists can be different reasons. And that's demonstrably the case. But you want to ignore it.

Sure AQ have differing motivations then ISIS, but the recent spate of terrorist attacks, all over Europe, have been ISIS inspired. (as far as we can tell)

[Alpinestars]

s2art said:

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

Alpinestars said:

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

Exactly. While some people continue to put there own agenda into the terrorists actions rather than listening to the arguments attrocities will continue ad infinitum - and to both sides.

And until some people recognise that foreign policy is secondary to what motivates ISIS we will never have a good policy for dealing with them.

So now it does have something to do with it?

What motivates ISIS and what motivates individual terrorists can be different reasons. And that's demonstrably the case. But you want to ignore it.

Sure AQ have differing motivations then ISIS, but the recent spate of terrorist attacks, all over Europe, have been ISIS inspired. (as far as we can tell)

Sorry, but you're still not addressing the point. ISIS do not own the people. The people can have different motivations to ISIS. In any case, they both state foreign policy as reasons for terrorism.

I really can't make it any simpler.

[gadgetmac]

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

Alpinestars said:

s2art said:

gadgetmac said:

Alpinestars said:

You haven't read the 6 reasons they give then? I can quote them again if you want.

Notwithstanding that, individuals act as individual's. You can join a "club" and we can all have different reasons for joining that club. The club's mission statement is not always the reason we join.

Why are you ignoring the terrorists themselves. Do you know their motivations better than they did/do? Or don't they fit your narrative?

Exactly. While some people continue to put there own agenda into the terrorists actions rather than listening to the arguments attrocities will continue ad infinitum - and to both sides.

And until some people recognise that foreign policy is secondary to what motivates ISIS we will never have a good policy for dealing with them.

So now it does have something to do with it?

What motivates ISIS and what motivates individual terrorists can be different reasons. And that's demonstrably the case. But you want to ignore it.

Sure AQ have differing motivations then ISIS, but the recent spate of terrorist attacks, all over Europe, have been ISIS inspired. (as far as we can tell)

Sorry, but you're still not addressing the point. ISIS do not own the people. The people can have different motivations to ISIS. In any case, they both state foreign policy as reasons for terrorism.

I really can't make it any simpler.

He has a basic problem undestanding the difference between ISIS and the Individual Terrorist and his personal motivations. I fear we're on a losing wicket.