Attack outside UK Houses Of Parliament — No speculation — Read 1st post

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe you too need to study the idea of 'multi pronged' campaigns.
Irish men were fighting for Britain in WW1 while the British were fighting Irish men back in Ireland.

Crazy complicated old world sometimes.

So because isis are attacking shia muslims in the middle east they're a multi pronged campaign but attacks in the west have nothing to do with islamism because britain/the usa invaded iraq/afghanistan? not trying to be ignorant here its just your posts are very disjointed

ilkhanid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed (usually) people into the 'acceptance of their gifts' and generally left their colonies in a political mess and they didn't 'bring it on themselves'?
Does the small notion of taking responsibility for your actions not apply to Britain?

Do you think that the whole world (even the Islamic world) revolves around Britain? It doesn't. Radical Islam has been growing for several decades now.
Saudi Arabia became much more rigorous about religion in the eighties. It was an Islamist group that murdered Sadat in 1981 and Egypt was the home of the Muslim brotherhood since 1928. Britain left India in 1947 but Islam in the sub-continent has been growing more radical since then and this trend was accelerated by Zia in Pakistan. The Algerian civil war took hundreds of thousands of lives in the nineties

Billy86 wrote: »

You're not giving the US and Soviets enough credit either... for some reason, the people of Iran didn't seem to be happy being put in the middle of a battle for their gas resources with a puppet left in charge of the country.

The Iranian Revolution started out as a democratic one. The Islamist piggy-backed on it and twisted it to their ends.

Widdershins

When attacks like this happen in Europe, I think it's incumbent on us to look at the wider reasons and that can't be done without examining Islam. Constant slurs of Islamopobia don't help. Look at Mohammed VI, Muslim reformist king of Morocco..his own reforms were opposed by the Islamists.

FrancieBrady

ilkhanid wrote: »

Do you think that the whole world (even the Islamic world) revolves around Britain? !ds.

I didn't say the world revolves around Britain.
The thread is about an attack in Britain by a British citizen and has a mod warning to keep it on topic.
I have used the word 'west' though. And hatred of the west is what motivates a lot of this.

ilkhanid

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say the world revolves around Britain.

That's what you implied, strongly
"The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed". I.E It's all Britain's fault.
In any case, Britain had a huge empire, and if it was as fiendish as you portray it, I doubt something like the Commonwealth could even exist. Countries as diverse as India, Singapore, Nigeria, Malaysia and Kenya made their peace with Britain, and now they, in their turn, are threatened by Islamists.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have used the word 'west' though. And hatred of the west is what motivates a lot of this.

Not just the "West". Every "Kuffr" state from Japan to Sweden to France to Iran is regarded as culpable by IS and other Jihadi groups. They are all part of the Dar al-Harb, the "Realm of War".

FrancieBrady

ilkhanid wrote: »

That's what you implied, strongly
"The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed". I.E It's all Britain's fault.



Not just the "West". Every "Kuffr" state from Japan to Sweden to France to Iran is regarded as culpable by IS and other Jihadi groups. They are all part of the Dar al-Harb, the "Realm of War".

For me to mean 'it was all Britain's fault' I would have to actually 'say' it. Could you guys have the decency to stop lying about what I didn't say. We were discussing a crime carried out in Britain by a British man.

And saying 'a lot' of something is motivated by hate of the west leaves room for other motivations, that is why I didn't say 'all'.

Please read posts with more care.

donkeykong5

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ilkhanid wrote: »

That's what you implied, strongly
"The British sow discontent around the world as they pillaged and bombed". I.E It's all Britain's fault.



Not just the "West". Every "Kuffr" state from Japan to Sweden to France to Iran is regarded as culpable by IS and other Jihadi groups. They are all part of the Dar al-Harb, the "Realm of War".

For me to mean 'it was all Britain's fault' I would have to actually 'say' it. Could you guys have the decency to stop lying about what I didn't say. We were discussing a crime carried out in Britain by a British man.

And saying 'a lot' of something is motivated by hate of the west leaves room for other motivations, that is why I didn't say 'all'.

Please read posts with more care.

The murders were carried out in Britain as you say. But NOT By a British man. But by a murdering muslim.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For me to mean 'it was all Britain's fault' I would have to actually 'say' it. Could you guys have the decency to stop lying about what I didn't say. We were discussing a crime carried out in Britain by a British man.

And saying 'a lot' of something is motivated by hate of the west leaves room for other motivations, that is why I didn't say 'all'.

Please read posts with more care.

I think you might want to consider your word choice... When you use words/phrases like "sow discontent", "Pillage", etc it tends to suggest a certain bias. Hardly "lying" to suggest that you're assigning blame to Britain.

The problem with these threads is the tendancy to assign blame/responsibility to western nations without seeking any balance by acknowledging the responisbility for the state of their own countries.

Many former colonies were left with excellent economies, and then, within a few years of independence, they turn to civil war, Tribalism, genocide, destroying the former infrastructure/manufacturing base, etc.

I wouldn't seek to suggest any innocence for former colonial powers, but It would be nice to see some balance assigned to the actions of the former colonies or "manipulated" countries themselves. Which your posts tend not to do.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you might want to consider your word choice... When you use words/phrases like "sow discontent", "Pillage", etc it tends to suggest a certain bias. Hardly "lying" to suggest that you're assigning blame to Britain.

The problem with these threads is the tendancy to assign blame/responsibility to western nations without seeking any balance by acknowledging the responisbility for the state of their own countries.

Many former colonies were left with excellent economies, and then, within a few years of independence, they turn to civil war, Tribalism, genocide, destroying the former infrastructure/manufacturing base, etc.

I wouldn't seek to suggest any innocence for former colonial powers, but It would be nice to see some balance assigned to the actions of the former colonies or "manipulated" countries themselves. Which your posts tend not to do.

I assigned the blame that Britain bears to Britain on a thread about a British man going on a murderous rampage and in reply to a poster suggesting that Britain was getting some of what it deserved. At other times I have used the term 'the West'.

I would debate the rest of what you say but it would be way off topic.

Widdershins

It seems strange that attacks like the Wesminster attack are blamed largely on military campaigns b the West when no other people from former colonies or countries with such campaigns seem to be attacking any of the countries that are under threat from Isil. Why is that? It seems that the reasons are not really rooted in military campaigns and it is just part of the wider islamist (political islam, it does not mean muslim) aggression against many different countries and peoples.

I just want to add to a previous discussion r.e sharia law, it has come to my attention that the European Court of Human Rights declared it as wholly incompatible with human rights and democratic principles,due overwhelmingly to its treatment of women, and there is a petition to get the BBC to ''tell the truth about sharia law'.

FrancieBrady

Widdershins wrote: »

It seems strange that attacks like the Wesminster attack are blamed largely on military campaigns b the West when no other people from former colonies or countries with such campaigns seem to be attacking any of the countries that are under threat from Isil. Why is that? It seems that the reasons are not really rooted in military campaigns and it is just part of the wider islamist (political islam, it does not mean muslim) aggression against many different countries and peoples.

I just want to add to a previous discussion r.e sharia law, it has come to my attention that the European Court of Human Rights declared it as wholly incompatible with human rights and democratic principles,due overwhelmingly to its treatment of women, and there is a petition to get the BBC to ''tell the truth about sharia law'.

Jesus, again with the exaggeration of what was said.
I said: 'Attacks by the West are motivating factors for joining radical Islamist groups'.
I did not: blame the Westminster attack on that alone.
As yet we still don't know 'why' that attack was carried out.

Again, please stop.

And on the point you did make, what leads you to believe, looking at all the world's history, that responses to aggression and oppression are going to be rational?

Widdershins

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, again with the exaggeration of what was said.
I said: 'Attacks by the West are motivating factors for joining radical Islamist groups'.
I did not: blame the Westminster attack on that alone.
As yet we still don't know 'why' that attack was carried out.

Again, please stop.

And on the point you did make, what leads you to believe, looking at all the world's history, that responses to aggression and oppression are going to be rational?

I was speaking generally, not specifically about you.

I agree they're not rational as such and they may be partly due to ''eye for an eye'' sentiments, but still think it's important that they're coming from Islamists and not for example, Yazidis or Christians from the Middle East, at least as far as I'm aware. Nor Ahmaddiya Muslims, either. They were the ladies who lined up on Westminster bridge in solidarity with victims, by the way.


We do know why it was carried out.

Please stop making assumptions about my comments!

ScumLord

Depp wrote: »

So radical islamists are attacking shia muslims because they hate the west then? you do realise attacks in the west account for about 10% of isis attacks at the minute?

You start a lot of posts with "So...." and then go onto reinterpret what's been said to you. It's almost comical. It would be great if rather than try to reinterpret other peoples opinions you could just take them at face value and not focus so much on turning their words into ammunition for your rebuttal.

Depp

ScumLord wrote: »

You start a lot of posts with "So...." and then go onto reinterpret what's been said to you. It's almost comical. It would be great if rather than try to reinterpret other peoples opinions you could just take them at face value and not focus so much on turning their words into ammunition for your rebuttal.

I was responding to a post that that seemed to me like it was suggesting that the only reason for the rise of isis was intervention of the west in the middle east then I asked how a hatred of the west motivates attackas by isis against muslims in the middle east? fair enough question I thought, sorry if how I structure my sentences offends you! Also find it Ironic you bring up misrepresentation with the amount of times people calling out islamism in this thread have been taken for ''having a go at muslims'' or the like.

Depp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, again with the exaggeration of what was said.
I said: 'Attacks by the West are motivating factors for joining radical Islamist groups'.
I did not: blame the Westminster attack on that alone.
As yet we still don't know 'why' that attack was carried out.

Again, please stop.

And on the point you did make, what leads you to believe, looking at all the world's history, that responses to aggression and oppression are going to be rational?

No-ones saying attacks by the west arent helping isis to recruit, 100% they are, but to say that islamism (not Islam or all Muslims) isnt a factor also is false.

Also when you have a guy who hopped out of a car and shouted ''alahu akbar'' while stabbing a cop and hes currently being investigated for links to radical groups, to say we dont know why the attack was carried out is a bit of a stretch

ScumLord

Depp wrote: »

I was responding to a post that that seemed to me like it was suggesting that the only reason for the rise of isis was intervention of the west in the middle east then I asked how a hatred of the west motivates attackas by isis against muslims in the middle east? fair enough question I thought, sorry if how I structure my sentences offends you!

It doesn't offend me, you're still reading too much into posts and jumping to conclusions.

Just something to bare in mind next time you go to start a thread with "So..", ask yourself are you about to just reword the post so it can have a different meaning.

Depp

ScumLord wrote: »

It doesn't offend me, you're still reading too much into posts and jumping to conclusions.

Just something to bare in mind next time you go to start a thread with "So..", ask yourself are you about to just reword the post so it can have a different meaning.

I wasn't doing anything of the sort, I was trying to ask the poster to explain his post further, specifically re the attacks by isis on muslims in the middle east and how attacks by the west motivate them, which is the inferrence I took from the post. If I'm wrong, and the poster wishes to explain how ive got the wrong end of the stick im more than happy to apologize and take it on board but no sign of that yet by the look of things.

Widdershins

I'm seeing a bit of a trend here and I think I know who is doing the misrepresenting.

Depp

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm seeing a bit of a trend here and I think I know who is doing the misrepresenting.

I'll admit its happening on both sides in this thread but come out and explain how I've misrepresented you if you think I have, more than open to it, don't just stop replying and have a bit of a whinge.

Widdershins

Depp wrote: »

I'll admit its happening on both sides in this thread but come out and explain how I've misrepresented you if you think I have, more than open to it, don't just stop replying and have a bit of a whinge.

I meant that I think you are being misrepresented, Depp. Not sure if you were talking generally there or to me in particular. It's also happened to me more than once on this thread. I hope I haven't done it myself, but I know I haven't consciously done it.

Depp

Widdershins wrote: »

I meant that I think you are being misrepresented, Depp. Not sure if you were talking generally there or to me in particular. It's also happened to me more than once on this thread. I hope I haven't done it myself, but I know I haven't consciously done it.

Not calling anyone out in particular just a general statement on the thread, lot of misrepresentation on here just saying whinging about being misrepresented and not explaining how is not a good enough rebuttal

Widdershins

Depp wrote: »

Not calling anyone out in particular just a general statement on the thread, lot of misrepresentation on here just saying whinging about being misrepresented and not explaining how is not a good enough rebuttal

Ironic statements being taken as a literal statement is a bit annoying. It has happened a couple of times.

ilkhanid

Widdershins wrote: »

I agree they're not rational as such and they may be partly due to ''eye for an eye'' sentiments, but still think it's important that they're coming from Islamists and not for example, Yazidis or Christians from the Middle East, at least as far as I'm aware. Nor Ahmaddiya Muslims, either. They were the ladies who lined up on Westminster bridge in solidarity with victims, by the way.

As I said, a particular mind-set and that emanating from a particular branch of Islam, which refutes the notion that there is something inevitable about it.
I've also noted that the Colonial past of certain European countries is also raised (one example often-quoted is Algeria) which makes me wonder why the Vietnamese aren't wrecking havoc in Paris or Washington.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have used the word 'west' though. And hatred of the west is what motivates a lot of this.

And, to be blunt, I'd call that a lazy practice, just as much as if I spoke vaguely about East Asia, lumping Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese and Mongolians into one category. "The West" includes a score of countries of different cultures, histories and attitudes. Some had empires and were active interventionists, Empire builders and schemers; others weren't. The idea that Sweden, Canada, the UK and Austria can be easily comprehended in one label is...peculiar, to say the least.