Foreign policy and terrorism in UK - any connection?

[footnote]

Lots of coverage of Corbyn and links between UK foereign policy and terrorism in Britain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/jeremy-...

On the Today programme, security minister Ben Wallace forcefully said he didn't accept Corbyn's view that there was any link between UK involvement in wars/foreign policy and radicalisation.

Baroness Manningham-Buller (former head of MI5) was also quoted as having said that Britain's involvement in the war in Iraq radicalised a generation.

Security Minister Ben Wallace seemed to be arguing that because Britain was a democratic country, terrorists had no 'right' or 'justification' to attack it.

Although he didn't expand on Britain's 'right' or 'justification' to invade or impose itself in the affairs of other countries without invitation.

I was very surprised by Wallace's view and have always thought the connection between British involvement in other countries and terrorism here was generally accepted - clearly I've been labouring under a misapprehension - what do you think?

[footnote]

desolate said:

With reference to the question posed in the title of the OP.

If foreign policy doesn't have any connection to terrorism in the UK - what's the point?

Fair point.

And what about the IRA?

Were their actions not connected to foreign policy?

[footnote]

Security Minister Ben Wallace's assertion that there's no connection between foreign policy and terrorism seems either naive then, or designed to mislead.

I don't imagine he's naive, so I'm concluding he has a political motive for stating that there is no connection between foreign polcy and terrorism here.

Actually, I was quite struck by his phrasing when he answered the question.

He said the only people to blame where the individual terrorists themselves, which is the current media phrasing used when avoiding 'victim blaming', which is fine when talking about sex attacks when the only person to blame is the actual attacker but less convincing when talking about terrorism which tends to have some external motivating factors outside of the individual terrorist's sense of self-gratification.

It's an effective media/pr technique but misunderstood and wrongly used by Ben Wallace in these circumstances.

Actions have consequences and we don't always know what they'll be and aren't able to control them either.

[footnote]

Don said:

I think it's far too easy to overcomplicate the issue of terrorism.

We can leave it to the professional experts to try and categorise and understand the motives behind different terrorist organisations but one thing is common amongst all those who commit acts of terror.

They are s.

Explains a lot, doesn't it? Simple. Then work from there.

Is there a connection between foreign policy and terrorism? Might be. In specific cases.

Controlled violence can achieve a lot. Uncontrolled acts of barbarism are most straightforwardly explained by my former contention.

I would speculate that our 'foreign policy' can be viewed as terrorism by the people who have to put up with it.
So they would view us in the same way you view them.
That's a reasonable conclusion.
Unlike us, they don't always believe we must be acting in their best interests.
It's all about perspective and other countries have points of view that are different to ours - which doesn't always make them wrong - or right - but it helps explain things I think.

[footnote]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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...