Foreign policy and terrorism in UK - any connection?

[ferrisbueller]

TTmonkey said:

ferrisbueller said:

TTmonkey said:

Iraq wasn't invaded with ground troops in GW1 but we destroyed much of their infrastructure and pressed home the attack hard against fleeing troops using air attacks right back up the country. Justifiable in the circumstances too.

Pretty sure the US launched ground assaults into Iraq in the first Gulf War. Supported by various other NATO forces, including the UK.

Yes there was incursion into southern Iraq, but it wasn't an occupation followed by the overthrow of the regime. They stoped well short of the major cities and withdrew. Clearly they had to remove the threat from the area around Kuwait. Would I Call that an invasion? No, a deep incursion followed by withdraw. It's a shame they didn't get it done there and then though. Invaders stay, overthrow, impose new regime.

I'd call that an invasion but it's semantics.

[Alpinestars]

Majid Nawaz on LBC in a couple of minutes discussing this subject.

[footnote]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I would speculate radicalisation has it's roots in a negativity towards Britain/British foreign policy which is more part of a cultural heritage of immigrants and the immigrant experience.

If, for example, your parents/grandparents came here from Pakistan after experiencing the horror of partition - perhaps fleeing intimidation or fear of death in India, their children and grandchildren will obviously have a sense of their difference from the white British majority and always ask their elders what they are and why they are here.

The answer to that is always going to involve an element of blame attributed to British colonialism.

Perhaps though, the kids are happy in the UK and have a nice community but then something happens to destabilise that - negative contact with police, negative press on Asian sex abuse, general racism etc etc and before you know it, a child with a positive view of Britain is on the way to being transformed into a young adult with a very different and perhaps quite resentful view of Britain as the cause of many of his problems.

This is a ficitional example for illustrative purposes only - but I think not a million miles away from how attitudes could be formed - for Muslim kids, Irish kids, Jamaican kids etc etc etc

[footnote]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well, I can't tell whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there or having a random pedantic general knowledge poke.

I would just add if you accept Britain is responsible for the creation of Pakistan, then have a look at how many millions were displaced, raped, maimed and murdered as a result of Britain's 'creation' and think about how many still have living descendants in the UK and worldwide.

[irocfan]

Just the point I was about to make WRT Sikhs and Indians...

[Justayellowbadge]

Western foreign policy will often be cited by the inadequate manipulated individuals who carry out the actual attacks.

It will be loudly used by those pulling the strings.

Is it motivating those who are orchestrating things? Not in any way. It is useful to them, is all.

[footnote]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No worries - I was probably reading with my 'perceived slight' radar set to high!

I think you highlight the depth of British 'foreign policy' issues - how far do we go back before we can say Britain wasn't causing a problem?

Taking/occupying people's countries, dividing them, giving as gifts what they've stolen previously and then expecting to be thanked.

The mindset of the occupier is entirely at odds with that of the occupied. I can't imagine it's ever forgotten and for many people, never forgiven.

I can't explain why the Indians aren't also bombing Britain - although I'm glad about it!

I'm not suggesting today's events rest solely on the outcome of partition for Muslims - just that attitudes are formed in a complex cauldron and when we mess with the recipe we may not like the taste of what we cook.

[s2art]

This is a balanced observation

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...

[footnote]

s2art said:

This is a balanced observation

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...

Thanks for that - good article.

And the related one by the emergency planner was very moving - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...

[TonyToniTone]

ferrisbueller said:

TTmonkey said:

ferrisbueller said:

TTmonkey said:

Iraq wasn't invaded with ground troops in GW1 but we destroyed much of their infrastructure and pressed home the attack hard against fleeing troops using air attacks right back up the country. Justifiable in the circumstances too.

Pretty sure the US launched ground assaults into Iraq in the first Gulf War. Supported by various other NATO forces, including the UK.

Yes there was incursion into southern Iraq, but it wasn't an occupation followed by the overthrow of the regime. They stoped well short of the major cities and withdrew. Clearly they had to remove the threat from the area around Kuwait. Would I Call that an invasion? No, a deep incursion followed by withdraw. It's a shame they didn't get it done there and then though. Invaders stay, overthrow, impose new regime.

I'd call that an invasion but it's semantics.

It's not semantics we invaded Iraq in GW1 and the UK were the first on the ground, using the term occupation is a straw man.

[skyrover]

Okay lets look at the 1980's... before GW1 had begun

These attacks received significant press coverage, but many more went unreported in the west.

Syria - Bombed by Islamic terrorists "the muslim brotherhood"
Lebanon - Bombed by the the "Islamic Jihad organisation"
Kuwait - Bombed by "Islamic Jihad Organization and Islamic Dawa Party"
Indonesia - Bombed by Islamist's
Spain - Bombed by the "Islamic Jihad Organization"
Greece- TWA Flight 847 hijacked by "Hezbollah"
Denmark - Bombed by "Islamic Jihad Organization"
Turkey - Bombed by "Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front"
Israel - Bombed by "Palestinian Islamic Jihad"

[Halb]

TonyToniTone said:

I doubt there would be any of these attacks or people pouring into Europe if Husain, Gaddafi, al-Assad etc were still ruling, so there must be some connection to our foreign policy.

Quite.
And then there is Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

[Halb]

footnote said:

Andy Burnham quoted in the Guardian disagreeing with Corbyn -

he told TalkRadio. “9/11 happened before any interventions overseas, and the ideology was in existence before that … The people who committed this appalling act are responsible for it, 100%.”

I had to go away and check the history books - I'm sure Britain had foreign policy pre 9/11 and oh, wasn't there an invasion of Iraq before the Iraq war... Gulf War maybe... it's all so long ago it must be before young Andy Burnham started thinking about these things - which makes it all okay.

Always strange when certain politicians seem to use 911 as the starting point. Mentioned in this thread, one of al quada's main beefs was the forces stationed in KSA post Gulf war (when the USA told KSA Iraq was planning to invade them!), not to mention when an uprising was instigated and then allowed to be destroyed by use of gunships. Burnham is a nasty and deceitful character.

[kurt535]

Can anyone confirm the passports and place of abode for those who detonated bombs, completed knife attacks, etc, etc in our country since 7/7?

Ty

[ferrisbueller]

Halb said:

footnote said:

Andy Burnham quoted in the Guardian disagreeing with Corbyn -

he told TalkRadio. “9/11 happened before any interventions overseas, and the ideology was in existence before that … The people who committed this appalling act are responsible for it, 100%.”

I had to go away and check the history books - I'm sure Britain had foreign policy pre 9/11 and oh, wasn't there an invasion of Iraq before the Iraq war... Gulf War maybe... it's all so long ago it must be before young Andy Burnham started thinking about these things - which makes it all okay.

Always strange when certain politicians seem to use 911 as the starting point. Mentioned in this thread, one of al quada's main beefs was the forces stationed in KSA post Gulf war (when the USA told KSA Iraq was planning to invade them!), not to mention when an uprising was instigated and then allowed to be destroyed by use of gunships. Burnham is a nasty and deceitful character.

For many people history started with 9/11. A convenient means of trying to erase deeds of the past. Given the rate at which we've fked things up since then there'll need to be another cleansing of the slate before too long.

[ferrisbueller]

TonyToniTone said:

ferrisbueller said:

TTmonkey said:

ferrisbueller said:

TTmonkey said:

Iraq wasn't invaded with ground troops in GW1 but we destroyed much of their infrastructure and pressed home the attack hard against fleeing troops using air attacks right back up the country. Justifiable in the circumstances too.

Pretty sure the US launched ground assaults into Iraq in the first Gulf War. Supported by various other NATO forces, including the UK.

Yes there was incursion into southern Iraq, but it wasn't an occupation followed by the overthrow of the regime. They stoped well short of the major cities and withdrew. Clearly they had to remove the threat from the area around Kuwait. Would I Call that an invasion? No, a deep incursion followed by withdraw. It's a shame they didn't get it done there and then though. Invaders stay, overthrow, impose new regime.

I'd call that an invasion but it's semantics.

It's not semantics we invaded Iraq in GW1 and the UK were the first on the ground, using the term occupation is a straw man.

My response was based on the fact that an invasion is generally done with the aim of occupation or territorial again and TT's point was that we didn't do that. We may have gone in and out but we still went in, which is my definition of invasion.

[Jazzy Jag]

So what should we have done in GW1?
Stayed out of it and let Sadam have Kuwait?
Chased Iraqi forces up-to the border and stopped?

[kurt535]

Jazzy Jag said:

So what should we have done in GW1?
Stayed out of it and let Sadam have Kuwait?
Chased Iraqi forces up-to the border and stopped?

you have to still question why the other arab states didn't pile in there and sort him out.

[kurt535]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

as if, huh?

[gadgetmac]

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.