UK General Election 2017

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!

Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.

---

How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this. The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.

@Husar the zulu had migrated into the area from east africa and rose to dominance by exterminating the surrounding tribes, killing thier men raping their women and enslaving thier children. Thier ascendance set into motion a mass migration of fleeing tribes that resulted in a major depopulation of the surrounding region killing 2 million people.

Did this history make the zulu state deserving of their subjugation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this.

---

I was only blaming you (English nationalists) in my post, but just to make you happy, here you go:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

@Husar the zulu had migrated into the area from east africa and rose to dominance by exterminating the surrounding tribes, killing thier men raping their women and enslaving thier children. Thier ascendance set into motion a mass migration of fleeing tribes that resulted in a major depopulation of the surrounding region killing 2 million people.

Did this history make the zulu state deserving of their subjugation?

---

So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.

The yin and yang are perfectly balanced, nothing to see here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.

---

How typical. Looks like you finally came around to the pro-Brexit side, glad I could help.
Or perhaps you're trying to fight ideological wars with bombs and bombs aren't ideological weapons.
Surely they're being used by ideologues, but you can't bomb ideologies. Even the terrorists can't. The right always responds like you do and the left always replies with "we need more peace and love!".
To get such a ban as you propose, you have to fight the same ideologies and/or establish a dictatorship, so good luck with that. You could start by bombing those who oppose the new legislation until they agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I was only blaming you (English nationalists) in my post, but just to make you happy, here you go:

So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.

The yin and yang are perfectly balanced, nothing to see here.

---

Just a reminder. When I was saying that Britain should mind its own business and withdraw from all engagements with the middle east, you were the one arguing for more engagement. I would gladly accede to this terrorist's wishes and have absolutely nothing to do with Muslim countries, except where necessary to trade for resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

How typical. Looks like you finally came around to the pro-Brexit side, glad I could help.
Or perhaps you're trying to fight ideological wars with bombs and bombs aren't ideological weapons.
Surely they're being used by ideologues, but you can't bomb ideologies. Even the terrorists can't. The right always responds like you do and the left always replies with "we need more peace and love!".
To get such a ban as you propose, you have to fight the same ideologies and/or establish a dictatorship, so good luck with that. You could start by bombing those who oppose the new legislation until they agree with you.

---

I see no point in fighting an ideological war with bombs and bullets, or with ideology. I see no point in fighting the war at all, or engaging with these barbarians in any way beyond what is necessary. I think their ideology is barbaric, but they're free to have it in their own country. They use the argument of self determination (despite your trying to weasel out of that principle when I pressed you on it), but their claim is reciprocal. They want us out of their country, the reciprocation is that they should get out of our country. Since we can't get them out due to international laws, we should keep them out instead, which is within our rights as a state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How typical. Someone whose family the UK has helped for decades, who was brought up here like any other Briton, decides to bomb children. And Husar is right here blaming the UK for this. The lesson we can draw from this is the conclusion I've come to. We should stop taking in immigrants from Muslim countries, even those who claim refuge (as Abedi's parents did). Even if we do all we can for them, they'll still end up against us, and we'll still be blamed for their actions by anti-Anglo ideologues. Rather than try to explain how it came to this end, let's just not make a start in the first place. Let Germany take them all.

---

You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.

---

I'd like to hear your solution to the problem. Or indeed your definition of the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Just a reminder. When I was saying that Britain should mind its own business and withdraw from all engagements with the middle east, you were the one arguing for more engagement. I would gladly accede to this terrorist's wishes and have absolutely nothing to do with Muslim countries, except where necessary to trade for resources.

---

The trade for resources is the part that basically shatters your argument entirely. What if they decide to trade the resources with Russia or China instead because they sell them arms in return? You just say okay, stop using your car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I see no point in fighting an ideological war with bombs and bullets, or with ideology. I see no point in fighting the war at all, or engaging with these barbarians in any way beyond what is necessary. I think their ideology is barbaric, but they're free to have it in their own country. They use the argument of self determination (despite your trying to weasel out of that principle when I pressed you on it), but their claim is reciprocal. They want us out of their country, the reciprocation is that they should get out of our country. Since we can't get them out due to international laws, we should keep them out instead, which is within our rights as a state.

---

Why should they get out of your country if they want self determination? Does the UK not allow people from the US in because they used violence to get self determination? Does a country have to basically be a UK colony for the citizens to be allowed into the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The trade for resources is the part that basically shatters your argument entirely. What if they decide to trade the resources with Russia or China instead because they sell them arms in return? You just say okay, stop using your car?

---

That's their right to do so. I respect their right to do so. Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why should they get out of your country if they want self determination? Does the UK not allow people from the US in because they used violence to get self determination? Does a country have to basically be a UK colony for the citizens to be allowed into the country?

---

What right does anyone from outside the UK have to enter the UK? It's a privilege, and we can allow it to whoever we like, and withhold it from whoever we like. At least what I suggest doesn't involve violence, unlike what these arseholes are inflicting on us. If they want us to respect their self determination, they should reciprocally respect our self determination. Or is it a one way thing, in that people are allowed to do whatever they want to us, but we're expected to soak up whatever they hand us? I suspect it's the latter for you, since we're Britain and thus automatically the punchbag for the high horse moralists of this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So two wrongs make a right now in the UK.
In which case the wrong terrorism just rights your wrong foreign policy.

---

Im not sure if I should be annoyed you ruined my set up or happy you understand my point.

Just as the Zulu's actions doesnt nullify the wrongs of the british invasion, the iraq war doesnt make right of this terrorist attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

That's their right to do so. I respect their right to do so. Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.




What right does anyone from outside the UK have to enter the UK? It's a privilege, and we can allow it to whoever we like, and withhold it from whoever we like. At least what I suggest doesn't involve violence, unlike what these arseholes are inflicting on us. If they want us to respect their self determination, they should reciprocally respect our self determination. Or is it a one way thing, in that people are allowed to do whatever they want to us, but we're expected to soak up whatever they hand us? I suspect it's the latter for you, since we're Britain and thus automatically the punchbag for the high horse moralists of this world.

---

Aside from conflating individuals with countries, you fail to realize that there is no such thing as mutual self-determination, because self-determination necessitates conflict - therefore we have compromise in society.

Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?

---

They have tried hard to respect it for the most part of the 1930s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Aside from conflating individuals with countries, you fail to realize that there is no such thing as mutual self-determination, because self-determination necessitates conflict - therefore we have compromise in society.

Should the UK and the United States have respected Nazi German self-determination in the continent as long as they kept the peace with Anglophone countries?

---

In case you missed it, Britain entered WW2 as a result of keeping its promise to Poland, and did its darned best to continue doing so despite bankrupting itself in the process. And Germany declared war on the US.

As for mutual self determination: all diplomacy is based on reciprocity. If it's deemed an acceptable argument to point to our intervention as why we are a fair target (and NB. his sister said it was US attacks that made him decide to attack us), why is the reciprocal deemed to be unacceptable? Why are they allowed to say that we shouldn't be there, but we're not allowed to say that they shouldn't be here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I'd like to hear your solution to the problem. Or indeed your definition of the problem.

---

Which particular problem? Innocent people getting killed in someone else's war? Innocent people in this country getting killed in someone else's war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In case you missed it, Britain entered WW2 as a result of keeping its promise to Poland, and did its darned best to continue doing so despite bankrupting itself in the process. And Germany declared war on the US.

As for mutual self determination: all diplomacy is based on reciprocity. If it's deemed an acceptable argument to point to our intervention as why we are a fair target (and NB. his sister said it was US attacks that made him decide to attack us), why is the reciprocal deemed to be unacceptable? Why are they allowed to say that we shouldn't be there, but we're not allowed to say that they shouldn't be here?

---

So the UK had reason to contest German self-determination (though honor toward Poland wasn't ultimately a significant factor).

Again you conflate a number of different questions.

What is a matter of deserts and what is a matter of consequences? Whether or not you believe British foreign policy is a direct cause of terrorist attacks, it's a petulant display to treat a country like a sports team fanatic, endlessly whingeing about it but calling it the pinnacle of oppression when non-fanatics offer an opinion too. This is a question you need to give proper consideration regardless of whether the actions of terrorists are right or wrong.

The self-determination of domestic radicals isn't that of countries, these being different kinds of entities; you shouldn't apply the term to individuals at all, in fact. Domestic radicals are additionaly your countrymen, and the actions they undertake are usually straightforwardly criminal under British law. Don't try to apply concepts to inappropriate contexts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The problem is that the UK foreign policy is absolutely blameless and was never wrong. And if it ever was undeniably "wrong", it doesn't count because they ended all slavery worldwide for ever!

---

Whilst this is, of course, true throughout the 19th Century it is not really applicable today. The Golden Age of the Foriegn Office when debates over policy were conducted in Ancient Greek merely for the greater ease of quoting Plato have come to an end.

Corbyn is referring to this modern, fallen, form of Statecraft so it's unfair to use our glorious Empire as a beating stick to undermine his point.

Quote:

---

Take the Zulus for example, they were terrible slackers who were too lazy to invent gunpowder and got slaughtered by the British in return, who were just defending their country.
British foreign policy is (and always has been) the height of enlightenment and more altruistic than Mother Theresa. Only a terrorist would ever disagree with that.

---

Yes, excellent example, had almost nothing to do with the Foreign Office as Lt General Chelmsford was acting without orders. Shocking he got away with it, really.

Here's the situation.

This man was a Libyan refugee, we recently liberated Libya from the man his parents fled. Following that the locals have sent the country half to hell and he decided to blow up some teenagers. His insane response is not our fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You are InsaneApache from 30 years ago. About to make that leap from labour to hard right.

---

Apache is less Right Wing than you are Left Wing and Pannonian only appears to be shifting to the Right because Labour is abandoning the Centre and he feels they have no answer to this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So the UK had reason to contest German self-determination (though honor toward Poland wasn't ultimately a significant factor).

Again you conflate a number of different questions.

What is a matter of deserts and what is a matter of consequences? Whether or not you believe British foreign policy is a direct cause of terrorist attacks, it's a petulant display to treat a country like a sports team fanatic, endlessly whingeing about it but calling it the pinnacle of oppression when non-fanatics offer an opinion too. This is a question you need to give proper consideration regardless of whether the actions of terrorists are right or wrong.

The self-determination of domestic radicals isn't that of countries, these being different kinds of entities; you shouldn't apply the term to individuals at all, in fact. Domestic radicals are additionaly your countrymen, and the actions they undertake are usually straightforwardly criminal under British law. Don't try to apply concepts to inappropriate contexts.

---

And there is the salient point. They were born here, but their parents weren't. And radicalism does not decrease with each successive generation, but it's the younger generation, born here and raised here, who cause problems. If we can't remove these from the pool as they're our countrymen, why should we further add to that pool? After all, future prospective incomers aren't our countrymen, but outsiders from another country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Unlike you, I respect the principle of self determination.

---

I have no recollection of what you are referring to I'm afraid, but given that you constantly blame me for things you only imagine me saying, that's perfectly fine with me.
It just bothers me that you claim you support self-determination and yet defend the colonial adventures of your country that robbed people of self-determination and put them into artificial nation-states that obviously aren't actual nations and don't work. But hey, I just hate you so it's all fine, nothing to see here, keep calm and pretend you never did anything wrong.
And just in case you want to follow this up with a "but he was a 2nd gen immigrant!", the people who benefitted from his brainwashing and wanted to brainwash him for their purposes probably aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Just as the Zulu's actions doesnt nullify the wrongs of the british invasion, the iraq war doesnt make right of this terrorist attack.

---

I don't think a lot of people say it does. What many might say is that it is a logical consequence to some extent. You reap what you sow and so on. This may shock you, but I'm as much against terrorist attacks as you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And there is the salient point. They were born here, but their parents weren't. And radicalism does not decrease with each successive generation, but it's the younger generation, born here and raised here, who cause problems. If we can't remove these from the pool as they're our countrymen, why should we further add to that pool? After all, future prospective incomers aren't our countrymen, but outsiders from another country.

---

Could it be a better idea to engage the problem than to abdicate responsibility? Religious or national quarantines indicate an outstanding level of disdain for those who currently are your countrymen, aside from demanding a departure from contemporary British ideals. To many of your fellows who find your approach inimical to their view of the country, you would come to exemplify the understanding that "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but my enemy's enemy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Apache is less Right Wing than you are Left Wing and Pannonian only appears to be shifting to the Right because Labour is abandoning the Centre and he feels they have no answer to this problem.

---

More a case of exasperation with how we get it in the neck whatever we do or don't do, rules changing with no consistent philosophical basis except the conclusion that we're wrong and must be punished (Calvinball). If people are going to say we're wrong and hate us anyway, we might as well have a consistent philosophical argument, within international law, and go for the cheapest and clearest solution possible. If intervention is wrong and non-intervention is wrong, depending on which option we'd last chosen, then at least non-intervention across the board is cheaper. If an indefinitely replenishing number of British Muslims are going to hate us and attack us, and no-one's going to take them for us, then at least we can stop adding to their number from abroad. Other ongoing solutions can go on top of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Could it be a better idea to engage the problem than to abdicate responsibility? Religious or national quarantines indicate an outstanding level of disdain for those who currently are your countrymen, aside from demanding a departure from contemporary British ideals. To many of your fellows who find your approach inimical to their view of the country, you would come to exemplify the understanding that "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but my enemy's enemy".

---

These are contemporary British ideals. The UK left the EU because the Brexiteers feared the admission of Turkey would allow Muslims a free road into this country, among other things. Certainly immigration and Muslims are the top reason(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

These are contemporary British ideals. The UK left the EU because the Brexiteers feared the admission of Turkey would allow Muslims a free road into this country, among other things. Certainly immigration and Muslims are the top reason(s).

---

So the next step is to bar all Muslims? That would be a return to 19th-century ideals.

Pannonian, why is criticism so important to you? Any policy can be criticized by anyone - that doesn't leave you to crawl into a cave and hope all the meanies leave you alone, does it? You take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action, knowing you can't and shouldn't please everyone. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" is your favorite premise, yet it is wholly untrue and seems borne out of petulant parochialism. Criticism exists. Get over it.

Do the right :daisy: thing or you aren't fit to even stand to hear criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So the next step is to bar all Muslims? That would be a return to 19th-century ideals.

Pannonian, why is criticism so important to you? Any policy can be criticized by anyone - that doesn't leave you to crawl into a cave and hope all the meanies leave you alone, does it? You take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action, knowing you can't and shouldn't please everyone. "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" is your favorite premise, yet it is wholly untrue and seems borne out of petulant parochialism. Criticism exists. Get over it.

Do the right :daisy: thing or you aren't fit to even stand to hear criticism.

---

Pannonian's point is that if we intervene we're evil Imperialists, (Libya) and if we don't intervene we don't care (Syria) and its often the SAME PEOPLE making both arguments.

It is, therefore not possible to "take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action."

There is a well documented trend of second generation immigrants being more extreme and less integrated into British culture than their parents. This manifests not only in Terrorism but in tacit support for Suicide bombing, rejection of liberal Western ideals (such as women not having to cover up) and generally being bad citizens.

The fact is, in the UK only Muslims commit suicide bombings and irrc all the bombers have been born here.

So, if we let in no more Muslim immigrants or refugees they will not go on to have children who become suicide bombers and murder other people's children.

It's not a very compassionate response but it is a completely logical one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Pannonian's point is that if we intervene we're evil Imperialists, (Libya) and if we don't intervene we don't care (Syria) and its often the SAME PEOPLE making both arguments.

It is, therefore not possible to "take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action."

There is a well documented trend of second generation immigrants being more extreme and less integrated into British culture than their parents. This manifests not only in Terrorism but in tacit support for Suicide bombing, rejection of liberal Western ideals (such as women not having to cover up) and generally being bad citizens.

The fact is, in the UK only Muslims commit suicide bombings and irrc all the bombers have been born here.

So, if we let in no more Muslim immigrants or refugees they will not go on to have children who become suicide bombers and murder other people's children.

It's not a very compassionate response but it is a completely logical one.

---

We did all we could for Abedi's family, and he, a born and raised Briton, went and did what he did. And according to his (unapologetic) sister, it was the sight of victims of US bombings that made him decide to attack us. And after all that, you still have people blaming us for bringing these attacks on.

There is nothing we can do to appease these nutters and their apologists.

Quote:

---

It is, therefore not possible to "take criticism into account where possible and adopt reasonable courses of action."

---

Why isn't it? Does a policy have no other motivation behind it than to meet the standards of a particular group of critics? Criticism is no excuse for self-indulgent ambivalence. Do you cut all funding for the NHS because administering it is difficult? Do you drop the nuclear deterrent because its expensive and some people don't like it?

Also extend these critics the possibility of disagreement in good will. Not everyone who has specific criticisms of British foreign policy is willing to attack British institutions or people over it.

Quote:

---

So, if we let in no more Muslim immigrants or refugees they will not go on to have children who become suicide bombers and murder other people's children.

---

And if you stop all births we will not have to worry about crimes or bad citizens again. Perfectly logical - but has little relevance to governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There is nothing we can do to appease these nutters and their apologists.

---

So instead of worrying about "nutters and apologists", why not try developing good policy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So instead of worrying about "nutters and apologists", why not try developing good policy?

---

There is no good policy. We took in Abedi's parents as refugees from Qaddafi's Libya. They had this and other sprogs here. Said sprogs grew up here, aided by the state. We removed Qaddafi, as would have been Abedi sr's wish, and half the Abedi family returned to a liberated Libya. And this arsehole stayed behind to do what he did, after watching what the US did.

The only good policy would have been not taking in the older Abedis in the first place. Everything after that was as compassionate and progressive as any liberal democratic state can get. And we know the end result.

Quote:

---

Everything after that was as compassionate and progressive as any liberal democratic state can get.

---

You keep saying this - do you just assume that? Is it something osmotic, perhaps?

Regardless, however, would you consider - in the 20th century - barring entry to all East-European refugees when the child of one commits a terror attack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So instead of worrying about "nutters and apologists", why not try developing good policy?

---

Like what?

Maybe restrict preaching and access to Saudi Korans?

Oh sure, that'll go down well "Look, the Crusaders are trying to tell us our own religion."

For the UK Islamic Terrorism is an imported problem, terrorists are either second generation Muslim immigrants or first-generation converts.

What a lot of people seem to forget, too, if that current policy stems from the paradigm-shift that was 9/11 - an essentially unprovoked attack on the anniversary of the Battle of Vienna.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Like what?

Maybe restrict preaching and access to Saudi Korans?

Oh sure, that'll go down well "Look, the Crusaders are trying to tell us our own religion."

For the UK Islamic Terrorism is an imported problem, terrorists are either second generation Muslim immigrants or first-generation converts.

What a lot of people seem to forget, too, if that current policy stems from the paradigm-shift that was 9/11 - an essentially unprovoked attack on the anniversary of the Battle of Vienna.

---

Islamic terrorism is a problem that the world must manage and weather. You'll see it whether you repress your Muslims or respect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You keep saying this - do you just assume that? Is it something osmotic, perhaps?

Regardless, however, would you consider - in the 20th century - barring entry to all East-European refugees when the child of one commits a terror attack?

---

I've repeated it several times, so have you not read it, or have you dismissed it? Note what his sister said his motives were.

You've kept hammering the argument that we're somehow to blame. Could you suggest what we could have done instead that might have made him not attack us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I've repeated it several times, so have you not read it, or have you dismissed it? Note what his sister said his motives were.

---

Beyond merely existing in Britain.

Quote:

---

You've kept hammering the argument that we're somehow to blame. Could you suggest what we could have done instead that might have made him not attack us?

---

I haven't discussed blame. I specifically told you at the outset that I'm not discussing blame. You have this great difficulty changing the record from whatever track you are on. I'm trying to explain why the way you are thinking is an unproductive approach and describing what else there is to think, but you keep snapping back to your original line and reading everything relative to that perspective.

And I haven't been discussing ways to convince specific people not to subscribe to jihadi ideologies, because that's a futile exercise. You work with the population as a whole, first to do the actual appropriate governance that people living in a state need generally, second those specific programs aimed to improve security and encourage integration. If you simply have a visceral hatred of Muslims or are willing to apply collective punishment for even a single transgression, then our values are just too different and all I can hope for is to stand in your way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Beyond merely existing in Britain.

I haven't discussed blame. I specifically told you at the outset that I'm not discussing blame. You have this great difficulty changing the record from whatever track you are on. I'm trying to explain why the way you are thinking is an unproductive approach and describing what else there is to think, but you keep snapping back to your original line and reading everything relative to that perspective.

And I haven't been discussing ways to convince specific people not to subscribe to jihadi ideologies, because that's a futile exercise. You work with the population as a whole, first to do the actual appropriate governance that people living in a state need generally, second those specific programs aimed to improve security and encourage integration. If you simply have a visceral hatred of Muslims or are willing to apply collective punishment for even a single transgression, then our values are just too different and all I can hope for is to stand in your way.

---

Haras Rafiq On Manchester Attack - Enough Is Enough

Haras Rafiq is chief executive of Quilliam.

Quote:

---

Quilliam is a London-based left-of-center[1] think tank that focuses on counter-extremism, specifically against Islamism, which it argues represents a desire to impose a given interpretation of Islam on society. Founded as The Quilliam Foundation, it lobbies government and public institutions for more nuanced policies regarding Islam and on the need for greater democracy in the Muslim world whilst empowering moderate Muslim voices.
According to one of its co-founders, Maajid Nawaz, "We wish to raise awareness around Islamism";[2] he also said, "I want to demonstrate how the Islamist ideology is incompatible with Islam. Secondly … develop a Western Islam that is at home in Britain and in Europe … reverse radicalisation by taking on their arguments and countering them."[3]
The organisation opposes any Islamist ideology and champions freedom of expression. The critique of Islamist ideology by its founders, Maajid Nawaz, Rashad Zaman Ali and Ed Husain, is based, in part, on their personal experiences.[4]

---

Quote:

---

Quilliam defines Islamism in the following terms:
It is the belief that Islam is a political ideology, as well as a faith. It is a modernist claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari'ah should be used as state law, that Muslims form a political rather than a religious bloc around the world and that it is a religious duty for all Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as such. Islamism is a spectrum, with Islamists disagreeing over how they should bring their ‘Islamic’ state into existence.
Some Islamists seek to engage with existing political systems, others reject the existing systems as illegitimate but do so non-violently, and others seek to create an 'Islamic state' through violence. Most Islamists are socially modern but others advocate a more retrograde lifestyle. Islamists often have contempt for Muslim scholars and sages and their traditional institutions; as well as a disdain for non-Islamist Muslims and the West.[10]
Quilliam argues that Islam is just a religion, not a political religion or an ideology,[11] and that "Islam is not Islamism".[12] It also argues that "[Islamists] are extreme because of their rigidity in understanding politics".[13]

---

We've been doing the integration thing for decades, help to learn English, interpreters until you do, passing laws and monitoring to make sure people aren't being discriminated against, educating non-Muslims about Islam in schools.

This guy, and his siblings, had all that given to them, literally given, by the state and he still goes and kills children and his sister defends him because of something happening in another country we aren't at war with.

This isn't like fighting the IRA where it was a cross-generational thing and there was an older generation to talk to, and there were real legitimate grievances, and possible negotiation on a solution.

The Muslims who carry out these attacks are fighting a war of annihilation. You think it's just happenstance he chose an Ariana Grande concert? I don't. I think, in his mind, she was a symbol of everything he hated about the land of his birth.

I don't like the idea of stopping Muslim immigration, I doubt Pannonian likes it either but you need to present another alternative we haven't tried - instead of just smug criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

We've been doing the integration thing for decades, help to learn English, interpreters until you do, passing laws and monitoring to make sure people aren't being discriminated against, educating non-Muslims about Islam in schools.

This guy, and his siblings, had all that given to them, literally given, by the state and he still goes and kills children and his sister defends him because of something happening in another country we aren't at war with.

This isn't like fighting the IRA where it was a cross-generational thing and there was an older generation to talk to, and there were real legitimate grievances, and possible negotiation on a solution.

The Muslims who carry out these attacks are fighting a war of annihilation. You think it's just happenstance he chose an Ariana Grande concert? I don't. I think, in his mind, she was a symbol of everything he hated about the land of his birth.

I don't like the idea of stopping Muslim immigration, I doubt Pannonian likes it either but you need to present another alternative we haven't tried - instead of just smug criticism.

---

I was educated in an integrated system, comprehensives and all, meeting people from many cultures. The Muslims I met, and I knew enough to be familiar with Pakistani surnames, were little different from anyone else. I knew at least one who had a stonking huge union flag in his room, which I thought was rather tacky. I had no problems with Muslims from that generation or earlier. Why are we expected to give younger Muslims special treatment for fear of violent retaliation, when those I knew got on well enough without?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

We've been doing the integration thing for decades, help to learn English, interpreters until you do, passing laws and monitoring to make sure people aren't being discriminated against, educating non-Muslims about Islam in schools.

This guy, and his siblings, had all that given to them, literally given, by the state and he still goes and kills children and his sister defends him because of something happening in another country we aren't at war with.

This isn't like fighting the IRA where it was a cross-generational thing and there was an older generation to talk to, and there were real legitimate grievances, and possible negotiation on a solution.

The Muslims who carry out these attacks are fighting a war of annihilation. You think it's just happenstance he chose an Ariana Grande concert? I don't. I think, in his mind, she was a symbol of everything he hated about the land of his birth.

I don't like the idea of stopping Muslim immigration, I doubt Pannonian likes it either but you need to present another alternative we haven't tried - instead of just smug criticism.

---

Just as a separate matter - let's be clear Pannonian, I'm not claiming that this either drove Abedi to or justified him in carrying out the attack - you seem very sure of what services or treatment this or other families did or did not receive, or that whatever they did receive was exactly what was needed. Maybe integration policy in fact has been perfunctory and inconsistent?

Don't compare to the IRA, but to the Communists. The comparison rests not on the use of terrorism, but on the desire to implement a totally different social structure and form of government, incompatible with the existing system. The only way for it to be beaten is for the idea and its accessories to lose currency around the world. This can't be accomplished in or by any one country. A country may, however, have better or worse ways of managing the problem. I am perfectly comfortable in criticizing the impulse to drop the ball and sit on the ground as a petty response to a difficult situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Haras Rafiq On Manchester Attack - Enough Is Enough

Haras Rafiq is chief executive of Quilliam.

---

I don't know what in particular you want to raise from the video, or if it is meant as part of a supplementary discussion, and I find little of the video disagreeable, so I'll just make some remarks:

The attack is the "new normal" in the absolute sense that terror attacks in Europe and elsewhere are and have been normal for some time, but in the sense that certain values or expectations should be discouraged from normalizing, I agree.

As far as existince of an enabling culture toward radicalization in Muslim communities, I agree, and grievances and unmet needs should be aired and addressed without creating a ready logical transition toward rejection of and violence against the society and political process.

I agree that terrorist organizations do not actively "radicalize" so much as offer a venue for practical pursuit of radical idea. On the other hand, their existence and popularity in itself does contribute as a radicalizing factor.

Lone wolves never exist in a vacuum, but the term itself refers to someone who operates without partners or aid - it's understood as an operational descriptive. Reading a book on bomb-making, or an article about terror attacks, isn't the same as being coached through the process by a card-carrying jihadi, or even working together with local acquaintances.

With respect to homophobia, racism, and fascism, governments have tended to find it difficult to leada societal shift against them. Legislation to guarantee protections and the like helps, but agencies and outreach programs can only supplement an organic societal shift, or shape its direction, not produce it. So it's important to keep in mind the limits of what the state can accomplish through "educating people" directly. For Islam, indirect efforts and supporting community efforts themselves is more likely to be successful than central executive departments, I have to admit. On the other hand, trying to promulgate specific arguments, whether top-down or bottom-up, will suffer from lack of exposure and inadequate context, making it far from a panacea.

Following from this, Rafiq's endorsement of a values-based dialectical approach - seemingly descended from aspects of 18th-century popular pamphleteering - will find it difficult to make headway on a large scale because there are not many people, Muslim or non-Muslim, who can implement it on the specified terms. The increasing fragmentation and rightism of non-Muslim society makes it more difficult to address the fragmentation and right-ward turn of Muslim demographics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Just as a separate matter - let's be clear Pannonian, I'm not claiming that this either drove Abedi to or justified him in carrying out the attack - you seem very sure of what services or treatment this or other families did or did not receive, or that whatever they did receive was exactly what was needed. Maybe integration policy in fact has been perfunctory and inconsistent?

Don't compare to the IRA, but to the Communists. The comparison rests not on the use of terrorism, but on the desire to implement a totally different social structure and form of government, incompatible with the existing system. The only way for it to be beaten is for the idea and its accessories to lose currency around the world. This can't be accomplished in or by any one country. A country may, however, have better or worse ways of managing the problem. I am perfectly comfortable in criticizing the impulse to drop the ball and sit on the ground as a petty response to a difficult situation.



I don't know what in particular you want to raise from the video, or if it is meant as part of a supplementary discussion, and I find little of the video disagreeable, so I'll just make some remarks:

The attack is the "new normal" in the absolute sense that terror attacks in Europe and elsewhere are and have been normal for some time, but in the sense that certain values or expectations should be discouraged from normalizing, I agree.

As far as existince of an enabling culture toward radicalization in Muslim communities, I agree, and grievances and unmet needs should be aired and addressed without creating a ready logical transition toward rejection of and violence against the society and political process.

I agree that terrorist organizations do not actively "radicalize" so much as offer a venue for practical pursuit of radical idea. On the other hand, their existence and popularity in itself does contribute as a radicalizing factor.

Lone wolves never exist in a vacuum, but the term itself refers to someone who operates without partners or aid - it's understood as an operational descriptive. Reading a book on bomb-making, or an article about terror attacks, isn't the same as being coached through the process by a card-carrying jihadi, or even working together with local acquaintances.

With respect to homophobia, racism, and fascism, governments have tended to find it difficult to leada societal shift against them. Legislation to guarantee protections and the like helps, but agencies and outreach programs can only supplement an organic societal shift, or shape its direction, not produce it. So it's important to keep in mind the limits of what the state can accomplish through "educating people" directly. For Islam, indirect efforts and supporting community efforts themselves is more likely to be successful than central executive departments, I have to admit. On the other hand, trying to promulgate specific arguments, whether top-down or bottom-up, will suffer from lack of exposure and inadequate context, making it far from a panacea.

Following from this, Rafiq's endorsement of a values-based dialectical approach - seemingly descended from aspects of 18th-century popular pamphleteering - will find it difficult to make headway on a large scale because there are not many people, Muslim or non-Muslim, who can implement it on the specified terms. The increasing fragmentation and rightism of non-Muslim society makes it more difficult to address the fragmentation and right-ward turn of Muslim demographics.

---

The point he's making, and he uses Andy Burnham as an example, is that people should stop pretending that this is about anything other than Muslims practicing a form of Islam. And you go on and illustrate his point. No amount of long words and multiple paragraphs will disprove his point.

Quote:

---

And you go on and illustrate his point. No amount of long words and multiple paragraphs will disprove his point.

---

Maybe because I agree with that point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Just as a separate matter - let's be clear Pannonian, I'm not claiming that this either drove Abedi to or justified him in carrying out the attack - you seem very sure of what services or treatment this or other families did or did not receive, or that whatever they did receive was exactly what was needed. Maybe integration policy in fact has been perfunctory and inconsistent?

---

I've just noticed this. Of course the integration policy would have been comprehensive. He was born here. Being a British kid, he would have automatically had access to state support, from birth until he left school at 18. Since he went to university, that support would have extended beyond that age, and for as long as he was at university. Depending on when he left, it's possible that he could have been raised by the state from birth until he decided to kill those children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

He was born here

---

And? I'm not talking about the things that are generally available, but immigrant-specific or Muslim-specific items, which you only mentioned in the most abstract terms. Do you have a source on this particular family's history, the town or area in which they've lived, or are you making assumptions on your knowledge of things that are in principle possible or available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

And? I'm not talking about the things that are generally available, but immigrant-specific or Muslim-specific items, which you only mentioned in the most abstract terms. Do you have a source on this particular family's history, the town or area in which they've lived, or are you making assumptions on your knowledge of things that are in principle possible or available.

---

Bloody hell. I grew up with lots of Muslims. During cricket series, Pakistan fans would often outnumber England fans. Their culture was their own business, and none of the state's. What the state does, at least for kids, is ensure their welfare from birth until adulthood. Muslim kids are no different from other kids. They have a roof over their heads, they're fed, and they're educated. The environment they grow up in is British. Their culture is a mixture of home culture and outside culture. What kind of integration are you expecting? For that matter, what experience do you have of growing up among sizeable numbers of Muslims?

Quote:

---

Muslim kids are no different from other kids. They have a roof over their heads, they're fed, and they're educated. The environment they grow up in is British.

---

Please, you're again addressing something different than what I am. What I'm interested in with the very specific point of the last few posts is the actual experience of (Muslim) immigrants with the government and other groups, their services, and their offices as a matter of day-to-day life, not just law, policy objectives, or hopes and dreams.

Quote:

---

For that matter, what experience do you have of growing up among sizeable numbers of Muslims?

---

As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a New Yorker.

A brief example to help orient you toward what I've been asking would be the NYANA (New York Association for New Americans) organization. This was a non-governmental organization that throughout the second half of the 20th century provided interpreting, English-instruction, vocational training, clinical, and other services to refugees and immigrants arriving in New York, particularly Soviet Jews. This does not mean that all services were evenly distributed and accessed by all to an equal extent. NYANA helped some people a lot, while others got very little out of it, as is natural with organizations in real life.

So the question is one of what is available, what is accessible, what are the actual experiences of those targeted, and how do these vary by time, place, national origin, and other factors. This is in contrast to your very broad assumption of what must apply to all residents simply by dint of their existence in the UK, as though this stuff works through osmosis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Please, you're again addressing something different than what I am. What I'm interested in with the very specific point of the last few posts is the actual experience of (Muslim) immigrants with the government and other groups, their services, and their offices as a matter of day-to-day life, not just law, policy objectives, or hopes and dreams.



As I've mentioned in the past, I'm a New Yorker.

A brief example to help orient you toward what I've been asking would be the NYANA (New York Association for New Americans) organization. This was a non-governmental organization that throughout the second half of the 20th century provided interpreting, English-instruction, vocational training, clinical, and other services to refugees and immigrants arriving in New York, particularly Soviet Jews. This does not mean that all services were evenly distributed and accessed by all to an equal extent. NYANA helped some people a lot, while others got very little out of it, as is natural with organizations in real life.

So the question is one of what is available, what is accessible, what are the actual experiences of those targeted, and how do these vary by time, place, national origin, and other factors. This is in contrast to your very broad assumption of what must apply to all residents simply by dint of their existence in the UK, as though this stuff works through osmosis.

---

Why would these be relevant when they're born here, and when they enter the school system at the latest, they'll be exposed to the full spectrum of the British multicultural experience within the British school system? Kids are kids. They will mix within schools. The resulting culture isn't Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, but an amalgam of whatever they see at home mixed with what their friends are interested in. The state doesn't regulate that mixture. The state ensures children grow up healthy and are given a reasonable chance in life.

In the UK people get all that from the government, as a matter of course.

Note how the head of Quilliam has nothing to say about lack of efforts to integration. What he's saying is that Muslims don't challenge bigotry in their own communities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why would these be relevant when they're born here, and when they enter the school system at the latest, they'll be exposed to the full spectrum of the British multicultural experience within the British school system? Kids are kids. They will mix within schools. The resulting culture isn't Muslim, Jewish, or whatever, but an amalgam of whatever they see at home mixed with what their friends are interested in. The state doesn't regulate that mixture. The state ensures children grow up healthy and are given a reasonable chance in life.

---

Do white British children all have an identical experience growing up? Are all happy families alike?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...loan-benefits/

So, apparently he used his student loan to fund trips to Libya.

You know, the Libya without Gaddaffi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Kids are kids. They will mix within schools.

---

No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.

Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.

Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.

Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.

None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.

Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.

Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.

Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.

None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.

---

Er, no. In schools, Muslim kids suffer bullying, not because they're Muslims, but because they're kids. That's what kids do. They fix on anything remotely different, and tease or bully based on that. It's part of the process of growing up, learning to interact with others.

And as for "Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home."; he was born here. The moment his mother spat him out, this was his nation. Unless you're suggesting that the country he was born in and which raised him is not his nation, but is overridden by some other nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If an indefinitely replenishing number of British Muslims are going to hate us and attack us, and no-one's going to take them for us, then at least we can stop adding to their number from abroad. Other ongoing solutions can go on top of that.

---

I've always felt it to be a shame that we go to such lengths to prevent british [adults] from going to join their brethren in forging the new 'caliphate'.

there's lots a reaper drones and chaps with impressive moustache's doing sterling work in this regard. why inhibit the culling of the herd?

i don't really want to live among such people and count them as my countrymen. i'm all for the principle of rehabilitation, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Why isn't it? Does a policy have no other motivation behind it than to meet the standards of a particular group of critics? Criticism is no excuse for self-indulgent ambivalence. Do you cut all funding for the NHS because administering it is difficult? Do you drop the nuclear deterrent because its expensive and some people don't like it?

---

A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.

How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?

Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.

How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?

Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.

---

In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

A good point worth making:
66% of people recently said that british FP is in some part responsible for terrorist atrocities such as manchester.
but, about the same proportion tell chatham house each year that they support britain as a great power.

How do we marry these two apparent contradictions?

Easy, their may well be a link between our FP and terrorism, but it is a price worth paying for the role people wish their country to play.

---

You have to wonder who benefits and who loses from terrorism. As a strategy for making the electorate change course on foreign policy, it's counterproductive. States use the fear to push for greater powers and to extend ambitions abroad. The background hum of fear is a boon to right wing parties and arms companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...loan-benefits/

So, apparently he used his student loan to fund trips to Libya.

You know, the Libya without Gaddaffi?

---

The one you fixed, yes.
I wonder why he didn't learn about democratic values there given that Britain fixed it for him as Pannonian likes to point out.

This incident should be an eye opener for anyone neutral who didn't believe that there are those who will blame Britain for all the ills in the world, even where someone raised by the state decides to kill children at a concert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?

---

Distance yourself from their actions very loudly, criticize them and declare to the world that you want no part in this and won't trade military technology and intelligence with them anymore as long as they do this. You know, like everyone demands that the muslims do to absolve themselves from blame when their (perceived) "allies" do something terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

This incident should be an eye opener for anyone neutral who didn't believe that there are those who will blame Britain for all the ills in the world, even where someone raised by the state decides to kill children at a concert.

---

Or an eye opener for those who did not want to believe that some Brits turn into a broken record because they cannot wrap their head around the idea that their country may make mistakes. "Raised by the state" is really funny in this context, since you either blame the British state yourself now or try to use an upbringing as an argument that counts as the worst possible upbringing in most other countries.

In your argument with Montmorency you keep talking about all your muslim friends who turned out fine, but ignore how an upbringing in London and Manchester or even in different parts of a town can be very different and lead to fundamentally different world views. You're trying to simplify the argument to the point that it does not reflect the real world anymore when you propose that all British (muslim) children receive the same upbringing and can be directly compared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.

---

All of these are to be taken seriously ONLY IF it can be proved that 1) the perpetrators KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS and 2) knowing they were dealing with Muslims was the chief motif behind their behavior. Otherwise it will sound like 100% of European women in bathing suits having a walk in Riyadh downtown claim they were stared upon or were denied services in reataurants because they were Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Er, no. In schools, Muslim kids suffer bullying, not because they're Muslims, but because they're kids. That's what kids do. They fix on anything remotely different, and tease or bully based on that. It's part of the process of growing up, learning to interact with others.

---

That's bollox. Teacher suggesting in class that everyone should wear T-shirts representing Mohamed to piss of Muslim among other drivel. Kid goes home after that class, gets stopped by a few older kids, who, aside from flinging a few typical racial insults like "Paki" proceed to call him a terrorist and slap him around.

Just a normal part of growing up.

I work in education in a region where there are over 20 different ethnic groups. I know the difference between kids picking on each other and serious discrimination. This was not harmless.

Quote:

---

And as for "Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home."; he was born here. The moment his mother spat him out, this was his nation. Unless you're suggesting that the country he was born in and which raised him is not his nation, but is overridden by some other nation.

---

Being born somewhere doesn't make really make you a part of that society. If you're denied service in public offices, if you're talked down to, if you hear politicians saying that you should be driven out of the country, that you're a danger to society, if you get bullied and beaten up because of that, if you're discriminated against at work... you're not going to feel at home there.

People who have not been discriminated against usually don't have the faintest idea how it feels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

That's bollox. Teacher suggesting in class that everyone should wear T-shirts representing Mohamed to piss of Muslim among other drivel. Kid goes home after that class, gets stopped by a few older kids, who, aside from flinging a few typical racial insults like "Paki" proceed to call him a terrorist and slap him around.

Just a normal part of growing up.

I work in education in a region where there are over 20 different ethnic groups. I know the difference between kids picking on each other and serious discrimination. This was not harmless.



Being born somewhere doesn't make really make you a part of that society. If you're denied service in public offices, if you're talked down to, if you hear politicians saying that you should be driven out of the country, that you're a danger to society, if you get bullied and beaten up because of that, if you're discriminated against at work... you're not going to feel at home there.

People who have not been discriminated against usually don't have the faintest idea how it feels.

---

I apologise. It turns out Abedi was bullied as a kid.

Quote:

---

Friends recalled that he was not very devout as a younger teenager, and was teased about his prominent ears and given the nickname Dumbo.

---

A traumatic experience I'm sure, and which turned him into what he became.

Quote:

---

One friend said Abedi started fights in the street for no reason, while another told of an incident in which he punched a female classmate in the head, saying “he could have killed her”, because he didn’t approve of what she was wearing.

---

And because people keep missing this point despite my repeating it numerous times.

Quote:

---

Jomana Abedi said her brother had been driven by a desire to seek “revenge” for US military attacks in the Middle East.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You have to wonder who benefits and who loses from terrorism. As a strategy for making the electorate change course on foreign policy, it's counterproductive. States use the fear to push for greater powers and to extend ambitions abroad. The background hum of fear is a boon to right wing parties and arms companies.

---

It [can] be counterproductive:
It was extremely productive in 2004 in Spain in getting the country to withdraw from Iraq.
Less so in Britain, and i imagine the same can be said of france.
The reaction depends on [your] conception of your country's role in world affairs.
The chatham house foriegn policy poll conducted every year (i think), is illuminating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In this particular case, according to Abedi's sister, it was US foreign policy that made her brother want to attack Britain. What the hell are we supposed to do about that?

---

Sure, but from the point of view of whether we should continue to have an activist foriegn policy, does it matter what the motivations of one little nutcase is? Surely it is simply too micro to the macro conception of our world role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

It [can] be counterproductive:
It was extremely productive in 2004 in Spain in getting the country to withdraw from Iraq.
Less so in Britain, and i imagine the same can be said of france.
The recation depends on [your] conception of your country's role in world affairs.
The chatham house foriegn policy poll conducted every year (i think), is illuminating.

---

Abedi bombed kids in Manchester to force the US to withdraw from Syria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

All of these are to be taken seriously ONLY IF it can be proved that 1) the perpetrators KNEW THEY WERE DEALING WITH MUSLIMS and 2) knowing they were dealing with Muslims was the chief motif behind their behavior. Otherwise it will sound like 100% of European women in bathing suits having a walk in Riyadh downtown claim they were stared upon or were denied services in reataurants because they were Christians.

---

They are still valid regarding how muslims perceive their reception in Britain. There's always some excuse for how the racists can be racist because the muslims make it so easy to perceive them as evil, but the other way around it's somehow the muslims' fault that they perceive a lot of Britons to be racist? It easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides, especially when the response to this perception is very aggressive. Yes, of course the response by muslims is often wrong, terrorism and rioting in the streets just don't help, but neither do racists policy proposals, spitting on foreign-looking people and all the other little things racists may do to make them feel not accepted.

Now what a lot of people seem to think is that the more powerful side should be the first to break the circle and extend a hand. Muslims make up 4.4% of the population of the UK, clearly they are the more powerful side here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

They are still valid regarding how muslims perceive their reception in Britain. There's always some excuse for how the racists can be racist because the muslims make it so easy to perceive them as evil, but the other way around it's somehow the muslims' fault that they perceive a lot of Britons to be racist? It easily turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy on both sides, especially when the response to this perception is very aggressive. Yes, of course the response by muslims is often wrong, terrorism and rioting in the streets just don't help, but neither do racists policy proposals, spitting on foreign-looking people and all the other little things racists may do to make them feel not accepted.

Now what a lot of people seem to think is that the more powerful side should be the first to break the circle and extend a hand. Muslims make up 4.4% of the population of the UK, clearly they are the more powerful side here.

---

Should we take action against kids who tease other kids for having big ears?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Should we take action against kids who tease other kids for having big ears?

---

Of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I apologise. It turns out Abedi was bullied as a kid.

A traumatic experience I'm sure, and which turned him into what he became.

And because people keep missing this point despite my repeating it numerous times.

---

You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.

You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.

So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.

You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.

So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.

---

I can't disagree on the direct consequences of the UK's foreign policies bit. I've said for a while that our best bet, if we are to intervene at all, is to prop up dictators rather than instigate democracy. Democracy in that region tends towards Islamism. Dictatorship, as brutal as the individual cares to be, is the most effective bulwark against Islamism in that region. If there's already a dictator there repressing the Muslim population, count ourselves lucky that we don't need to get our hands dirty to reach this state of affairs. Although people like Abedi may decide to kill our kids anyway to effect change in arseholeland, with apologists saying that it's our fault for intervening/not intervening (cross off as appropriate).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

You can play ignorant all you want. I'm talking about a trend. Whether this one case falls into that category or not is irrelevant.

You may also note that it appears his parents weren't really democrats oppressed by Gaddafi, but religious fundamentalists disapproving of a mostly secular regime. They were given refugee in UK. And then a coalition which included UK directly intervened to oust Gadaffi.

So, in this case at least, we can talk about direct consequences of UK's foreign policies.

---

Another primary source on why ISIS hates the west, as opposed to your high horse theoretical moralism. I'll link to a secondary article, but you can google the mag itself. The original is the official ISIS mag.

Why We Hate you and Want to Fight You

Quote:

---

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."

2 . Because you are liberal
"We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you Christian disbelief and paganism 32 separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power."

3. Because some of you are atheist
"In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator."

4. For your crimes against Islam
"We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion."

5. For your crimes against Muslims
"We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth."

6. For invading our lands
"We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim."

"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."

---

Yup, even if we were to stop intervening in the middle east, they would still hate us and find reason to attack us (NB. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."). So the only way to satisfactorily accommodate them is to convert to the ISIS-brand of Islam. Do the moralists still think we're not sufficiently accommodating them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I can't disagree on the direct consequences of the UK's foreign policies bit. I've said for a while that our best bet, if we are to intervene at all, is to prop up dictators rather than instigate democracy. Democracy in that region tends towards Islamism. Dictatorship, as brutal as the individual cares to be, is the most effective bulwark against Islamism in that region. If there's already a dictator there repressing the Muslim population, count ourselves lucky that we don't need to get our hands dirty to reach this state of affairs. Although people like Abedi may decide to kill our kids anyway to effect change in arseholeland, with apologists saying that it's our fault for intervening/not intervening (cross off as appropriate).

---

I'm not trying to be an apologist, especially not for terrorists. My opposition stems from the fact that I'm tired of simple solutions for complex problems. There are a plethora of factors at play here. Singling out one arbitrarily and trying to deal with it is not going to give us a solution. Especially as singling out isn't conducted under any logical standards but is influenced by cultural stereotypes and biases.

Like we're discussing cancer, and someone says "let's stop eating bacon" and then someone "no, we should ban all cars", and then proceed to argue who's right. Both (unhealthy diet and air pollution) have an effect on ones chances to get cancer, but even if both solutions were applied, people would still get cancer.

So, we need try for a more comprehensive solution, realize that it will take a long time for it to take effect and even then won't rid the world of terrorism completely. We also take into account which possible solutions are unacceptable due to our values. For instance Americans hold their right to bear arms in high regard. That means they will have to deal much more often with some kids going to their grandad's arsenal, borrowing a bunch of military weapons and go on a killing spree in their own school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Another primary source on why ISIS hates the west, as opposed to your high horse theoretical moralism. I'll link to a secondary article, but you can google the mag itself. The original is the official ISIS mag.

Yup, even if we were to stop intervening in the middle east, they would still hate us and find reason to attack us (NB. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."). So the only way to satisfactorily accommodate them is to convert to the ISIS-brand of Islam. Do the moralists still think we're not sufficiently accommodating them?

---

I have no reason to doubt the contents of the article, but I see two major issues with your conclusion.

1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
2) You're equating Muslims and Isis. That makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy. Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I'm not trying to be an apologist, especially not for terrorists. My opposition stems from the fact that I'm tired of simple solutions for complex problems. There are a plethora of factors at play here. Singling out one arbitrarily and trying to deal with it is not going to give us a solution. Especially as singling out isn't conducted under any logical standards but is influenced by cultural stereotypes and biases.

Like we're discussing cancer, and someone says "let's stop eating bacon" and then someone "no, we should ban all cars", and then proceed to argue who's right. Both (unhealthy diet and air pollution) have an effect on ones chances to get cancer, but even if both solutions were applied, people would still get cancer.

So, we need try for a more comprehensive solution, realize that it will take a long time for it to take effect and even then won't rid the world of terrorism completely. We also take into account which possible solutions are unacceptable due to our values. For instance Americans hold their right to bear arms in high regard. That means they will have to deal much more often with some kids going to their grandad's arsenal, borrowing a bunch of military weapons and go on a killing spree in their own school.

I have no reason to doubt the contents of the article, but I see two major issues with your conclusion.

1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.
2) You're equating Muslims and Isis. That makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy. Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.

---

If you reckon I'm approaching this in too simplistic a manner, then note what Haras Rafiq says in that video I posted. You're illustrating his point, as are the other apologists. There is a simple paradigmatic first step which you and others avoid, as he notes many people do.

Quote:

---

1) You're equating propaganda with policy. If that were true, we'd see terrorist attacks in Lima, Caracas and Quito with the same frequency as we see attacks in Paris, London and Berlin.

---

You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?

Importantly, attacks in Europe by Al Qaeda and ISIS footsoldiers can be counted on one's fingers, while in North Africa they take place with regularity, because North Africa is the most natural operating environment, logistically and culturally. Meanwhile, local groups throughout Africa and Asia have conducted attacks on non-Muslims in their regions for years.

Don't get me wrong - the current security situation is lax enough that the first attacks could be fairly devastating, since Latin American states are not oriented toward that threat. Yet I don't see any incentive for Islamists to branch into Latin America, or any endogenous support base they can work with to do so. Cartels vs. Islamists then would be a nice prospect, if the two weren't busy doing illicit commerce with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?

Importantly, attacks in Europe by Al Qaeda and ISIS footsoldiers can be counted on one's fingers, while in North Africa they take place with regularity, because North Africa is the most natural operating environment, logistically and culturally. Meanwhile, local groups throughout Africa and Asia have conducted attacks on non-Muslims in their regions for years.

Don't get me wrong - the current security situation is lax enough that the first attacks could be fairly devastating, since Latin American states are not oriented toward that threat. Yet I don't see any incentive for Islamists to branch into Latin America, or any endogenous support base they can work with to do so. Cartels vs. Islamists then would be a nice prospect, if the two weren't busy doing illicit commerce with each other.

---

See Haras Rafiq's primary point in that video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Steve is evil -> Steve is a man -> all men are evil. It simply doesn't follow.

---

It is about time to realize it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

No. Muslim kids will suffer discrimination and bullying because they are Muslims. And every time anti-Muslim hysteria rises, they're gonna suffer more of it.

Then they will come home, turn on the tv and there will be panel of experts discussing how Muslim are dangerous, how they can never be integrated, how they need to be force converted, expelled, imprisoned, tortured etc... They will then move on to internet and find even more abuse, comparing them with rats and hyenas, explaining how they are subhumans, barbaric, encounter suggestions that Muslims should be cleansed from one or more places, hashtags #killallmuslims and so on.

Not that easy to accept your new nation as a home.

Fun facts:
1) 60% of Muslim in the UK witnessed or experienced discrimination against Muslims in 2015
2) 63% experienced subtle discrimination, where they were talked down to, called stupid or had their opinions minimised or devalued.
3) More than 50% said they've been overlooked, ignored or denied service in restaurants, transports and public offices.
4) 75% said they've experienced strangers staring at them.

None of this really excuses mass murder, of course, but let's stop pretending everything is fine and dandy.

---

According to many of my students of African descent, they cope with the same exact....stuff.....from many whites in the USA, and at about the same percentages. They become political activists and sometimes get involved in riots. They do not blow up crowded markets or youth concerts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

You can't really say so on the basis. South America would be a difficult operating environment (they would have to build it from scratch) and neither allied Muslims nor Europeans would be too impressed to see a soldier of God gunning down Quechuan villagers. What's the payoff?

---

Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.

Or, if you want another example - Russia was not a target for the Middle Eastern terrorists prior to their involvement in Syria. After that, they've had a few attacks. Likewise, Caucasus Muslims performed regular terrorist attacks in Russia but were almost completely avoiding western European countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

According to many of my students of African descent, they cope with the same exact....stuff.....from many whites in the USA, and at about the same percentages. They become political activists and sometimes get involved in riots. They do not blow up crowded markets or youth concerts.

---

Not nearly to the same extent.

I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.

In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.

According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.

Or, if you want another example - Russia was not a target for the Middle Eastern terrorists prior to their involvement in Syria. After that, they've had a few attacks. Likewise, Caucasus Muslims performed regular terrorist attacks in Russia but were almost completely avoiding western European countries.



Not nearly to the same extent.

I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.

In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.

According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.

---

And that argument is refuted by ISIS itself, who emphasise that the foreign intervention argument is largely irrelevant. See Haras Rafiq for the principle point of the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Not nearly to the same extent.

I'm not offering an excuse for the attack, or saying it is UK's fault. I was just refuting the idea that Muslims have it so good in UK.

In this case, an argument could be made that it is UK's fault, not because the way Muslim are treated in the country, but because of their intervention in Libya, but even that is a stretch.

According to that article, Abedi was a seriously damaged individual.

---

I would say that Blacks in the US probably have it much worse than Muslims in the UK. Anti-Muslim prejudice (as opposed to general British racism) is a very modern thing, essentially post 9/11, a lot of it comes out of early statements made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain which essentially refused to condemn fellow Muslims. This reticence did eventually break down, largely I think as the MCB was taken over by a younger generation. Nonetheless it has left the impression that most Muslims will not turn against "fellow Muslims" to protect non-Muslims from terrorism.

The prejudice is one born of recent experience, not a long-nursed hatred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I would say that Blacks in the US probably have it much worse than Muslims in the UK. Anti-Muslim prejudice (as opposed to general British racism) is a very modern thing, essentially post 9/11, a lot of it comes out of early statements made by the Muslim Council of Great Britain which essentially refused to condemn fellow Muslims. This reticence did eventually break down, largely I think as the MCB was taken over by a younger generation. Nonetheless it has left the impression that most Muslims will not turn against "fellow Muslims" to protect non-Muslims from terrorism.

The prejudice is one born of recent experience, not a long-nursed hatred.

---

The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam. That's the primary problem. A related problem is when people refuse to recognise this, with the corollary problem that it makes it easier for Muslims to deny that this is the problem. If you look everywhere else but that to avoid recognising that it is a Muslim problem and deriving from Islam, then it makes it easier for Muslims, who are the source of the problem and the only long term solution to the problem, to avoid recognising it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam.

---

The what?
Haras Rafiq practices "a form of islam" himself, is he part of the the problem himself? And why would you cite him them?
Surely you mean "a form of islamist salafi jihadist Islam" because that is what Rafiq said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The what?
Haras Rafiq practices "a form of islam" himself, is he part of the the problem himself? And why would you cite him them?
Surely you mean "a form of islamist salafi jihadist Islam" because that is what Rafiq said.

---

And another example of that non-Muslim problem he talked about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The primary problem is as Haras Rafiq describes, and it extends to non-Muslims with corollary problematic results. The problem is that Muslims are practicing a form of Islam. That's the primary problem. A related problem is when people refuse to recognise this, with the corollary problem that it makes it easier for Muslims to deny that this is the problem. If you look everywhere else but that to avoid recognising that it is a Muslim problem and deriving from Islam, then it makes it easier for Muslims, who are the source of the problem and the only long term solution to the problem, to avoid recognising it.

---

It is very dangerous to go down this road, because once you reach the conclusion that Muslims are the problem, a conclusion "no Muslims - no problems" isn't very far away.

It is a problem of perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. Many Christian African countries treat gays appallingly - incarcerations, torture, murder. They cite Christian doctrine as the reason and justification. Why are people afraid to say that the problem is in the Christianity itself? We can't move on until we accept that. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, yet Female Genital Mutilation is widespread there - when are we going to admit that Christianity is the problem?

If anyone would say that, people would assume he's crazy. Because it is Christianity. But Islam is okay. Lump them all together. It doesn't matter it's less than 0.01%. Islam is at fault and they are all dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It is very dangerous to go down this road, because once you reach the conclusion that Muslims are the problem, a conclusion "no Muslims - no problems" isn't very far away.

It is a problem of perverted interpretation of Islamic teachings. Many Christian African countries treat gays appallingly - incarcerations, torture, murder. They cite Christian doctrine as the reason and justification. Why are people afraid to say that the problem is in the Christianity itself? We can't move on until we accept that. Ethiopia is predominantly a Christian country, yet Female Genital Mutilation is widespread there - when are we going to admit that Christianity is the problem?

If anyone would say that, people would assume he's crazy. Because it is Christianity. But Islam is okay. Lump them all together. It doesn't matter it's less than 0.01%. Islam is at fault and they are all dangerous.

---

Why don't you listen to his comments? His group is as close as you'll get to a modernist Muslim think tank in the UK. His comments are backed up by the official ISIS mouthpiece that I quoted from, that addresses the arguments being made by the moralists here and elsewhere. You're making theoretical arguments that evade the primary evidence and arguments from experts.

And about the Ethiopia thing: there's a name for your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Exactly. If your decision making process is influenced by payoff, it means there's a logical process behind it. If it weren't they'd be killing all Christians everywhere in the world indiscriminately.

---

But why? Even if they did have an ambition to attack Christians indiscriminately - even if this were their only ambition, which they don't claim it to be - far better to do so in Africa and Eurasia than South America. Their stated principle does not oblige them to evenly distribute attacks geographically or by population.