UK General Election 2017

[Montmorency]

When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?

The horse's feet?

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

I don't see that I have.

[Pannonian]

The horse's feet?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

I don't see that I have.

Do other primary sources contradict that article?

[Montmorency]

Do other primary sources contradict that article?

I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.

The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.

[Pannonian]

I don't see anything contradicting the notion that IS hates "us", but you can't use this document in explaining or studying specific IS actions.

The document as a source is incomplete, not useless. Can't you see the distinction.

But that document specifically addresses a number of points, and one in particular (explicitly emphasised in case we think otherwise), which are still being put forward, including by the leader of the UK's opposition.

"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."

What other primary sources contradict this? Is this point not being made clear enough?

[Montmorency]

I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.

Please read my words, not your own mind.

[Fragony]

Well I got my own mind and I don't think anything will happen

[Pannonian]

I repeatedly said that the specific motivation of IS to attack the West existentially is not contradicted.

Please read my words, not your own mind.

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

[Sarmatian]

Montmorency explained my position better than I could have, so thank you mate.

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west.

THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.

[Husar]

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

It doesn't have to be the reason ISIS in particular attacks us. But that still leaves it as a reason for people to join ISIS, for other groups to attack us or for some of the more moderate people to become radicalized or be hesitant in defending us. Just because they mindlessly hate us, we don't have to become their best recruiting argument or even violate our own morals. I'm well aware that there are things we cannot do anything about or where people will blame us irrationally, but if we give up trying to do the right thing, well, especially then we got ourselves to blame, no? And we could make the situation worse than it is.

[Idaho]

I hope others will stop pointing to foreign policy as the reason why ISIS attacks the west. Or indeed, any reason except that we're different from how they want us to be, and they won't stop until we follow their prescribed way of life.

ISIS are a construction of foreign policy. They are the end product of a number of groups funded and armed over the last few decades (principally) by the US and Saudi Arabia.

Seeing them as an organic grassroots movement of ordinary Muslims is laughable. Yes when asked certain questions the average Muslim on the street will give fairly ISIS neutral answers sometimes (cue big daily mail headlines and the right wing rubbing themselves to a foamy conclusion) but ISIS are demonstrably a foreign and extreme ideology. If they weren't then we wouldn't just be seeing the odd lone nutter committing murder.