UK General Election 2017

[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.

[Pannonian]

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

THE reason, probably not. But A reason surely.

"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."

[Sarmatian]

"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."

I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.

Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...

There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack

[Sarmatian]

"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."

I don't need primary sources if empirical data show your hypothesis is, at very least, incomplete.

Why isn't ISIS attacking Serbia? It's closer to them, there are millions of Muslims living either in the country or in the near vicinity of the country, security isn't nearly as good as in western countries... Or other countries in the area - Montenegro, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania...

There obviously are more factors at play rather than just:
1) not Muslim country
2) proximity
3) how easy it is to carry out an attack

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?

[Husar]

Then I refer you to Haras Rafiq, whose group is dedicated to making things better for Muslims in Britain. Do you have a better idea of how things are for Muslims in Britain, how things go bad, and how things can be made better? If you're so confident about demolishing my sources, what alternative sources do you have?

I wasn't demolishing your sources, what Rafiq says is quite interesting.
What I challenged was your conclusion that all muslims should be expelled or all immigration stopped and I asked where Rafiq mentions this as a solution? And just because he does not see your foreign policy as they key factor in radicalization of individuals, that does not mean it was and is perfect.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

I refer you to the primary sources. What sources are you deriving your conclusions from?

[Sarmatian]

Why are you fixating on primary sources? Empirical evidence trump (no pun intended) primary sources. They always have.

If a primary source state than 1 000 000 people lived in an ancient city, and archeologists dig up that ancient city and conclude that no more than a 100 000 could have lived there, we naturally conclude that the primary source is wrong.

You're an intelligent man, I'm dumbfounded that you can not grasp this, even taking into account emotional weight of the issue for you.