Red Ken blames West for radicalism

[PanzerJaeger]

What he said is equivolent to blaming the US oil embargo for the Pearl Harbor attack.

In any event, why would you come out so close after your city had been attacked and sympathize with the enemy's cause.. it makes no sense.

You kill the people who are trying to kill you and leave such things to the historians.

[Ronin]

What he said is equivolent to blaming the US oil embargo for the Pearl Harbor attack.

In any event, why would you come out so close after your city had been attacked and sympathize with the enemy's cause.. it makes no sense.

You kill the people who are trying to kill you and leave such things to the historians.

panzer...where i come from they have a saying....it translates as "the worse kind of a blindman is the one that doesn´t want to see"...

no one is sympathizing with the enemy´s cause....no one can sympathize(in his right mind) can agree with a cause that calls for holesale murder in the name of some extremist´s view of religion...

but opening your eyes to the conditions that help that cause grow and flourish and the role that western countries had/have in that is not sympathizing...it´s trying to deal with the problem.

you can try to kill them all, that´s like trying to stop a fire with gasoline, helping them further their propaganda and influence another young man or woman so that they strap some explosives to their chest and blow some more inocents up.

if you do that i´m afraid it won´t just be a matter for the historians...your children will still be here fighting this very same fight.

[PanzerJaeger]

Despite the fact that the man is simply dead wrong, dont you think the timing and publicity was a bit off?

France and England didnt come out after the invasion of Poland and say "Well you know, we really shouldnt have been so hard on them at Versailles.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing your own role in such an event, but there is a time and place to make such statements.

How will stating such a thing help? It really doesnt matter what happened in the 80s, they are our enemies now and our public officials should be resolved to fight them and not make statements that appear to empathize with them.

How long has it been since the London bombings.. a week or so?

[Ronin]

Despite the fact that the man is simply dead wrong, dont you think the timing and publicity was a bit off?

France and England didnt come out after the invasion of Poland and say "Well you know, we really shouldnt have been so hard on them at Versailles.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing your own role in such an event, but there is a time and place to make such statements.

How will stating such a thing help? It really doesnt matter what happened in the 80s, they are our enemies now and our public officials should be resolved to fight them and not make statements that appear to empathize with them.

How long has it been since the London bombings.. a week or so?

the timing is correct....a solution is needed now not later...

the ww2 situation is diferent....despite that there were responsabilities from the versailles situation that wasn´t really important in finding a resolution for the conflict, you had a standard conflict, with a standard enemy that had armys that could be defeated, a navy that could be sunk and infrastructure that could be attacked and destroyed in order to gain victory....so it was really a situation of "let´s kick their ass, what caused this isn´t really important now"

the situation with AQ is not the same, you can´t bomb their capital back to the stone age because there´s no capital!
What you can do here is take away their propaganda tools, disrupt their action as much as possible(by force, i don´t think we should just do the other stuff) and mostly take away their recruitment base by reducing the numbers of impressionable people in dificult life conditions that fall into their lies.

so if a solution is needed now...those questions have to be asked now...if those sting a little so be it.

[Duke of Gloucester]

So then, he says the West caused radicalism? I guess that's better than blaming us for it.

Proper argument please. Obviously no-one has said the "the West" caused "radicalism". Not me and not Ken.

What he said is equivolent to blaming the US oil embargo for the Pearl Harbor attack.

He did not blame anyone. The oil embargo was a motivation for the Pearl Habor attack, though.

[PanzerJaeger]

the timing is correct....a solution is needed now not later...

so if a solution is needed now...those questions have to be asked now...if those sting a little so be it.

He didnt ask any questions, he stated that it was the wests fault.

You didnt answer the most important question. How were his words helpful to finding a solution to terrorism? Its not as if you can go back and change the 1980s.

There is a time for self criticism, but to do so now, right after your city has been attacked, only emboldens the enemy.

He did not blame anyone. The oil embargo was a motivation for the Pearl Habor attack, though.

Wrong on both counts. He blaimed the west and the motivation for Pearl Harbor was an aggressive Japanese empire.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Wrong on both counts. He blaimed the west and the motivation for Pearl Harbor was an aggressive Japanese empire.

If you read the article carefully, you will see he was asked about motivation. He was not asked whose fault the attacks were. He was not talking about blame. You are also wrong about Pearl Habor. Some historians would even argue that the oil embargo was a deliberate provocation. If we are talking black and white and no grey areas blame, then Pearl Harbour was the Japanese's fault and the London attacks are the fault of those who planned and carried them out, but if you want deeper analysis of underlying causes, then you need to listen to what Ken said, because there is an element of truth in it.

[Idaho]

Wrong on both counts. He blaimed the west and the motivation for Pearl Harbor was an aggressive Japanese empire.

Wrong on both counts yourself.

Livingstone cited Western policy in the Middle East and early American backing for Osama bin Laden.

The motivation for Pearl Harbour was partly the oil embargo and the US and Japan's competing colonial/capitalist interests in the Pacific.

[Slyspy]

Despite the fact that the man is simply dead wrong, dont you think the timing and publicity was a bit off?

France and England didnt come out after the invasion of Poland and say "Well you know, we really shouldnt have been so hard on them at Versailles.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing your own role in such an event, but there is a time and place to make such statements.

How will stating such a thing help? It really doesnt matter what happened in the 80s, they are our enemies now and our public officials should be resolved to fight them and not make statements that appear to empathize with them.

How long has it been since the London bombings.. a week or so?

In fact there were people of influence and power in both France and Britain (note: Britain) during the inter-war years who felt that Versailles had been to harsh. Almost as soon as it was signed in fact, and on even as the panzers rolled through Eastern Europe. Such thinking was certainly remembered in the peace after the War.