[DemolitionRed]

I would stop holding Washington's hand every time it decided to invade somewhere in the Middle East. There have been many wars we want no part of because there's little gain in getting involved but when it comes to oil/uranium rich deserts, we always want to join in with getting our hands dirty.

If terrorism from the Middle East is going to stop, we have to put an end to invading their lands because its our invasions that are the very bedrock of everything we are seeing unfold today in the West.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I would stop holding Washington's hand every time it decided to invade somewhere in the Middle East. There have been many wars we want no part of because there's little gain in getting involved but when it comes to oil/uranium rich deserts, we always want to join in with getting our hands dirty.

If terrorism from the Middle East is going to stop, we have to put an end to invading their lands because its our invasions that are the very bedrock of everything we are seeing unfold today in the West.

Claiming we're holding Washington's hand is a little disingenuous, we are allies... and we're not alone. Do you know how many countries are involved in the Syrian conflict? We are not alone with the USA, many other countries are involved including Islamic countries like Jordan and Saudi.

Saying we should remove ourselves from any conflict in the Middle East is like claiming the terrorists have a point. Also, we import only a fraction of our oil from the Middle East so claiming we "dirty our hands" because of it is simply not correct.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

Claiming we're holding Washington's hand is a little disingenuous, we are allies... and we're not alone. Do you know how many countries are involved in the Syrian conflict? We are not alone with the USA, many other countries are involved including Islamic countries like Jordan and Saudi.

Saying we should remove ourselves from any conflict in the Middle East is like claiming the terrorists have a point. Also, we import only a fraction of our oil from the Middle East so claiming we "dirty our hands" because of it is simply not correct.

Do you agree we should of gone to war in Iraq?
Do you believe what's happening now isn't a result of our intervention in Iraq? and do you believe that our partnership with NATO has brought about what is now happening in the West?

To understand what is happening in Europe today, we need to understand the full story and how it unfolded. History didn't start in July 2005 with the London bombings and neither did it start on Friday the 13th in France. If we don't look at the reasons behind these terrorist atrocities then how the hell do we plan a peaceful future for our children?

And lets get one thing straight, I make no excuse for the terrorists as you tried to imply, but I understand the reasons behind the terrorism. They are not doing this because we have some asset they want are they? its not an invasion is it?

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Do you agree we should of gone to war in Iraq?
Do you believe what's happening now isn't a result of our intervention in Iraq? and do you believe that our partnership with NATO has brought about what is now happening in the West?

To understand what is happening in Europe today, we need to understand the full story and how it unfolded. History didn't start in July 2005 with the London bombings and neither did it start on Friday the 13th in France. If we don't look at the reasons behind these terrorist atrocities then how the hell do we plan a peaceful future for our children?

And lets get one thing straight, I make no excuse for the terrorists as you tried to imply, but I understand the reasons behind the terrorism. They are not doing this because we have some asset they want are they? its not an invasion is it?

The thing is that not all of these issues can be attributed to our intervention in Iraq or anywhere else. These countries were ruled by brutal dictators that kept the population in line through kidnap, torture and mass murder. Thats all these people have known for generations. So when no-one is there to keep the fear, its replaced by others taking their place. That is the true result of what we have today. It stems from generations of abuse of the population in those countries.

Its easy to blame the USA and the UK, but the world was a **** place in those countries long before we intervened.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The thing is that not all of these issues can be attributed to our intervention in Iraq or anywhere else. These countries were ruled by brutal dictators that kept the population in line through kidnap, torture and mass murder. Thats all these people have known for generations. So when no-one is there to keep the fear, its replaced by others taking their place. That is the true result of what we have today. It stems from generations of abuse of the population in those countries.

Its easy to blame the USA and the UK, but the world was a **** place in those countries long before we intervened.

..another good post, bitontheslide...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The thing is that not all of these issues can be attributed to our intervention in Iraq or anywhere else. These countries were ruled by brutal dictators that kept the population in line through kidnap, torture and mass murder. Thats all these people have known for generations. So when no-one is there to keep the fear, its replaced by others taking their place. That is the true result of what we have today. It stems from generations of abuse of the population in those countries.

Its easy to blame the USA and the UK, but the world was a **** place in those countries long before we intervened.

Great post.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The thing is that not all of these issues can be attributed to our intervention in Iraq or anywhere else. These countries were ruled by brutal dictators that kept the population in line through kidnap, torture and mass murder. Thats all these people have known for generations. So when no-one is there to keep the fear, its replaced by others taking their place. That is the true result of what we have today. It stems from generations of abuse of the population in those countries.

Its easy to blame the USA and the UK, but the world was a **** place in those countries long before we intervened.

That begs the question, why didn't we go into Cambodia when Pol Pot was on his mass genocide mission? Why aren't we getting involved with the Ituri conflict, the Kivu conflict or the internal conflict in Myanmar? Sudan and Mexico are two of the worlds most deadly countries because of corrupt governments but we don't seem to worry about them.

I fully understand the interference from the West (mainly America) for removing the Persian Shah and replacing him with Ruhollah Khomeini. We get involved where it suits us financially and never it seems, on moral grounds.

How can we turn our backs on some murderous dictators whilst waging war on others?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That begs the question, why didn't we go into Cambodia when Pol Pot was on his mass genocide mission? Why aren't we getting involved with the Ituri conflict, the Kivu conflict or the internal conflict in Myanmar? Sudan and Mexico are two of the worlds most deadly countries because of corrupt governments but we don't seem to worry about them.

I fully understand the interference from the West (mainly America) for removing the Persian Shah and replacing him with Ruhollah Khomeini. We get involved where it suits us financially and never it seems, on moral grounds.

How can we turn our backs on some murderous dictators whilst waging war on others?

[bots]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That begs the question, why didn't we go into Cambodia when Pol Pot was on his mass genocide mission? Why aren't we getting involved with the Ituri conflict, the Kivu conflict or the internal conflict in Myanmar? Sudan and Mexico are two of the worlds most deadly countries because of corrupt governments but we don't seem to worry about them.

I fully understand the interference from the West (mainly America) for removing the Persian Shah and replacing him with Ruhollah Khomeini. We get involved where it suits us financially and never it seems, on moral grounds.

How can we turn our backs on some murderous dictators whilst waging war on others?

That's irrelevant to my point. You were advocating that it was the west that caused these problems by their invasion of Iraq, I was simply pointing out that these counties have behaved in the same way for many many years, long before we took action there

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

That's irrelevant to my point. You were advocating that it was the west that caused these problems by their invasion of Iraq, I was simply pointing out that these counties have behaved in the same way for many many years, long before we took action there

But why didn't we leave them to it?
We didn't have a problem with Islamic terror groups in Europe before we got involved.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

That's irrelevant to my point. You were advocating that it was the west that caused these problems by their invasion of Iraq, I was simply pointing out that these counties have behaved in the same way for many many years, long before we took action there

As horrible as this sounds it was an internal problem within those countries, why did us and America have to get involved? It may sound selfish but I think that it's up to the people in these countries to stand up to these leaders than having interference from foreign countries getting involved.

So are we responsible for ISIS starting up and finding it easier to conquer Iraq after also hunting down the Syrian leader? Yes we are.

[Dollface]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Do you agree we should of gone to war in Iraq?
Do you believe what's happening now isn't a result of our intervention in Iraq? and do you believe that our partnership with NATO has brought about what is now happening in the West?

To understand what is happening in Europe today, we need to understand the full story and how it unfolded. History didn't start in July 2005 with the London bombings and neither did it start on Friday the 13th in France. If we don't look at the reasons behind these terrorist atrocities then how the hell do we plan a peaceful future for our children?

And lets get one thing straight, I make no excuse for the terrorists as you tried to imply, but I understand the reasons behind the terrorism. They are not doing this because we have some asset they want are they? its not an invasion is it?

Understanding them and basically saying that they have a reason for their actions is (imo) making excuses for them.. There's no "reason" for killing innocent people that have nothing to do with what's going on in the middle east.

[Ammi]

..there is no reason with extremists or with their actions, which are only hate... their only aim is to kill, strike terror into and to control the fears and lives of the people they hate...

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Dollface

Understanding them and basically saying that they have a reason for their actions is (imo) making excuses for them.. There's no "reason" for killing innocent people that have nothing to do with what's going on in the middle east.

Of course there is NO reason for killing innocent people and there is NO excuse either but why do YOU think they are doing this? This isn't one mad man going on a killing spree, if it were, we would just put this down to insanity. These are groups of people that meet up, plan and then carry out those plans. What reason could these people possibly have? Perhaps you don't think it matters but if we are ever going to find a solution to stopping these killing sprees, the reasons behind why they happen matter very much.

[Dollface]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Of course there is NO reason for killing innocent people and there is NO excuse either but why do YOU think they are doing this? This isn't one mad man going on a killing spree, if it were, we would just put this down to insanity. These are groups of people that meet up, plan and then carry out those plans. What reason could these people possibly have? Perhaps you don't think it matters but if we are ever going to find a solution to stopping these killing sprees, the reasons behind why they happen matter very much.

I think they're just evil people wanting to cause death. They don't just target the west, they murder people in their own countries too. Surely, if their reasons were "well their soldiers killed some of us so we're going to kill some of them" they would target a government building or something, not a concert full of innocent teenagers.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Dollface

I think they're just evil people wanting to cause death. They don't just target the west, they murder people in their own countries too. Surely, if their reasons were "well their soldiers killed some of us so we're going to kill some of them" they would target a government building or something, not a concert full of innocent teenagers.

Yes, they are evil people and no, they don't just target the west. On the 12th of November, the day before the French attacks, two suicide bombers killed 43 people and wounded 239 more in the Lebanese capital in an ISIS-propagated murder. It got little news coverage because it was Muslims killing Muslims.

Truth is, the fundamental principles of Islam have been hijacked by extremists but if we try to defeat these radicalised monsters with militarily action we don't defeat the ideas intellectually, then the ideas will re-emerge which will only bring more mayhem to the West.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Dollface

Understanding them and basically saying that they have a reason for their actions is (imo) making excuses for them.. There's no "reason" for killing innocent people that have nothing to do with what's going on in the middle east.

To solve a conflict, the most important thing is to try and understand what their reasoning is so that you can combat that and hopefully resolve the issue. For ISIS, they have a very extreme ideology that everyone must bide by their salafi jihadist religion without any compromise.. and so there isn't really much to negotiate.. it's clear the most important thing we must do is prevent radicalisation and stop people turning to ISIS.

Many people who have joined recently quote that they believe 'the west' is bombing their homes and hospitals. ISIS has taken the mistakes of our governments and made out that they were made in malicious intent, and so if we were to drop more bombs indiscriminately in the region I really don't believe it would help to prevent people turning there.

Also what doesn't help is the anti-immigrant sentiment in our country right now. People in dangerous syrian war-zones have ultimately three options: they can join isis, attempt to cross the water into europe, or they can be killed. And I don't think anyone wants the third option, so what we really need to do is be taking more refugees to prevent ISIS getting hold of more fighters and supporters.

This might be poorly written but I hope the point gets across nonetheless. We need to deradicalise, and even better prevent it happening in the first place. The answer is not to drop more bombs, and definitely not to just ignore the syrian civilians.

[Dollface]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

To solve a conflict, the most important thing is to try and understand what their reasoning is so that you can combat that and hopefully resolve the issue. For ISIS, they have a very extreme ideology that everyone must bide by their salafi jihadist religion without any compromise.. and so there isn't really much to negotiate.. it's clear the most important thing we must do is prevent radicalisation and stop people turning to ISIS.

Many people who have joined recently quote that they believe 'the west' is bombing their homes and hospitals. ISIS has taken the mistakes of our governments and made out that they were made in malicious intent, and so if we were to drop more bombs indiscriminately in the region I really don't believe it would help to prevent people turning there.

Also what doesn't help is the anti-immigrant sentiment in our country right now. People in dangerous syrian war-zones have ultimately three options: they can join isis, attempt to cross the water into europe, or they can be killed. And I don't think anyone wants the third option, so what we really need to do is be taking more refugees to prevent ISIS getting hold of more fighters and supporters.

This might be poorly written but I hope the point gets across nonetheless. We need to deradicalise, and even better prevent it happening in the first place. The answer is not to drop more bombs, and definitely not to just ignore the syrian civilians.

That's my point. I've seem many posts on various sites basically saying that the west are to blame because if it wasn't for our governments and soldiers, ISIS wouldn't have a reason to do this. But that's just bull**** in my opinion.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Dollface

That's my point. I've seem many posts on various sites basically saying that the west are to blame because if it wasn't for our governments and soldiers, ISIS wouldn't have a reason to do this. But that's just bull**** in my opinion.

It's not our entire fault.. I agree with you. People who say that we are most likely feel angry towards the foreign policy but took their anger a bit too far to the point where it's just misplaced.

I remember reading somewhere that Al-Qaeda were originally trained to fight Russia but they became too powerful and we tried taking them out, they retaliated with 9/11.. sounds believable but the legitimacy of that story I have no idea because I don't know a lot of middle-eastern politics prior to 9/11 really.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I would stop holding Washington's hand every time it decided to invade somewhere in the Middle East. There have been many wars we want no part of because there's little gain in getting involved but when it comes to oil/uranium rich deserts, we always want to join in with getting our hands dirty.

If terrorism from the Middle East is going to stop, we have to put an end to invading their lands because its our invasions that are the very bedrock of everything we are seeing unfold today in the West.

This is woefully incorrect Red.

What is the very bedrock of what we are seeing unfold in the West today is a century old agenda by a not so little faction called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes - The 'West' has committed more than one 'faux pas' in its meddling in the Middle East, and yes we have been duplicitous - none more so than with the Israel matter - but this is no more than one of many contributary factors and is certainly not THE cause of the appalling horrors which are shedding innocent blood and creating such misery in the West (and in the Middle East and elsewhere).

I will be glad when some British stop trying to blame us for all the world's ills and trying to get us to self-flagellate and wear hair shirts.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is woefully incorrect Red.

What is the very bedrock of what we are seeing unfold in the West today is a century old agenda by a not so little faction called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Yes - The 'West' has committed more than one 'faux pas' in its meddling in the Middle East, and yes we have been duplicitous - none more so than with the Israel matter - but this is no more than one of many contributary factors and is certainly not THE cause of the appalling horrors which are shedding innocent blood and creating such misery in the West (and in the Middle East and elsewhere).

I will be glad when some British stop trying to blame us for all the world's ills and trying to get us to self-flagellate and wear hair shirts.

What does this mean? This theory is not unheard of that our involvement in the middle eastern conflicts have exacerbated situations you say so yourself...
DR suggests this is the reason for the surge in numbers and advancement of ISIS that is woeful but not incorrect.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What does this mean? This theory is not unheard of that our involvement in the middle eastern conflicts have exacerbated situations you say so yourself...
DR suggests this is the reason for the surge in numbers and advancement of ISIS that is woeful but not incorrect.

What does this mean?

Again? I really don't know what to suggest to you to render it easier for you to understansd my posts. Perhaps Nightclasses in English Comprehension?

"This theory is not unheard of that our involvement in the middle eastern conflicts have exacerbated situations you say so yourself..."

Yes - I do "say so myself" so doesn't that render this part of your response superfluous? So why write it?

"DR suggests this is the reason for the surge in numbers and advancement of ISIS that is woeful but not incorrect."


I am confused as to the actual meaning of what you are trying to say above, because the sentence does not make sense. Sorry.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Kizzy;8298637] "Apologists... That is a very interesting word, it for me anyway denigrates anyone who attempts to see the issue from all angles."

For you, the word 'Apologist' might do so - that is hardly surprising to me - but I USE the word in its CORRECT meaning; to define 'anyone who defends the actions of 'something' which is controversial' and when I deliberately precede the word 'Apologist' with the word 'Terrorist', then my use of the term 'Terrorist Apologist' means EXACTLY what I intend it to mean - ANYONE WHO DEFENDS TERRORISM'.

A 'Terrorist Apologist' means exactly that, and does NOT mean 'anyone who attempts to see the issue from all angles'.

Not in my logical, rational world anyway.

"'such is the cost of war' is not an adequate response to the severity of the reality of war it simplifies the horror of it, and the ramifications following any military involvement."

As everyone on here knows - I am no disciple of brevity, because, by definition, 'Serious Debates' cannot usually be satisfactorily addressed by a few 'sound bites' or copy-pasta.

However, there are occasions when it is simply not feasible to extend already lengthy posts or response posts by expounding side points or incidental issues of which - one assumes - the reader already has at least cursory knowledge.

So to accuse me of not 'giving an adequate response' etc in my comment on the 'side' issue of war, is frankly mere disingenuous deflection and 'straw clutching'

"It's not stupidity personified to question whether the west inadvertently made a bad situation worse due to said involvement, in a rational, logical world that's what people do they look at all the variables."

With respect, you are once again deliberately and dishonestly misrepresenting what I said, because I DID NOT state what you claim I stated above, I ACTUALLY clearly statedThat our intervention in) "Iraq was WRONG. Blair and Bush were WRONG, but they are but contributary factors and to claim that any mistakes which the WEST makes is RESPONSIBLE for ISIS or any other type of terrorism is stupidity personified."

What I actually said is so very easily verified on here by anyone who wishes to check and it bears NO resemblance to your ridiculous claim of what I said. But hey, I am finally getting used to your misrepresentations as a cover to obscure the fact you have no real argument - as tiresome as it is.

"There are in your analogies a consequence, had the girl and the lady been better prepared or taken an alternative route the outcome would have perhaps been different for them... Why is it so wrong to suggest that in reference to our naked streaking across Afghanistan or spilling our cash all over Syria?"

Again you illustrate by your confused and confusing text above, that you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what has been said, because the WHOLE point of my analogies which you allude to, is that; while both the young girl and the old woman can be said to have CONTRIBUTED to the terrible outcomes by their "ERROR OF JUDGEMENTS" - NEITHER CAN BE ACCUSED OF CAUSING THOSE OUTCOMES, and it is wrong to accuse them of such instead of laying the REAL blame were it so obviously belongs -- AT THE FEET OF THE EVIL PERPETRATORS.

Which is the same as in RED blaming the WEST instead of the evil twisted terrorist butchers.

In my logical, rational world anyway.

Now I am no more personally attacking you than you have me. I am merely responding, once again, to a response of yours to a post of mine which was NOT directed to you - a post in which you once again misrepresent and distort the truth of what I said.

It is futile to discuss if we do not start from a premise of truth.

- ANYONE WHO DEFENDS TERRORISM'.

And yet nobody has....