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

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you only have a legitimate gripe if you are affected by airstrikes? There would have been about twenty soldiers in the BA in WW2 if that was anything other than an evasion from the point.
It further illustrates that some people are not interested in a solution where the west has to take some of the responsibility.
As I said when I entered the thread, there will be no solution to this found until such time as the causes are addressed, just like the lesson we learned on our own island.
So there will be more threads like this, more tragedy and more ranting.


*Boards turned that into a link. There is no www .boards.iq Those people's voices are not heard much in the west, outta sight, outta mind.

I didn't say those people don't have a gripe, did you not see that I said ''not to say civilian deaths aren't a problem''. I pointed out that civilian deaths aren't motivating Isil, as they say themselves, and as evidenced by their murdering other muslims, other minority religions,christians, hidus, jews, disabled and gay people and destroying muslim historic sites.Rapind and torturing people. You think those actions are connected to despair at civilian deaths, seriously?

I doubt Iraqis are hearing much from Irish people either, I don't think there's any great tragedy about that? But we hear plenty from the East, we have good means of communicating globally nowadays.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem with attacks in the West has nothing to do with what the West is doing? I've heard some suit yourself arguments but that one takes the biscuit.

I think you are suiting yourself. Why are you seeing attacks in the west as having a relatively reasonable motivation, as if they're carried out by a different group and followers, than all of the above that I listed? You think the hatred and bloodlust is set aside and Isil suddenly care about the civilian deaths, which they themselves frequently and enthusiastically caused in Iraq and the ME?

Military campaigns in the ME are a contributing factor to the spread if Islamism to Europe but they aren't Isil's motivation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

ISIL are exploiting what the west is doing. It is as plain as the nose on your face.
ISIL have diddly squat chances of accomplishing their aims, and they know it so all that needs to be done is address the issue of why some Muslims, a tiny minority, are so easily radicalised.
Your man in London probably never spoke to an ISIL member in his life.

They don't need to speak to other isil members to become soldiers of the caliphate, that's what makes isil so dangerous. Not sure how to address what has already been done, and isil can't be placated and will continue to enjoy murdering people of all ethnicities, probably in Europe as well as the East.

Depp wrote: »

The solution is being honest and admitting to and facing up to the flaws within islamic doctrine that give rise to groups like this again and again. Not just from white europeans either the literal millions of moderate muslims who dont agree with this senseless bullsh!t need to speak up and denounce these psychos and need to be protected when doing so. The left needs to stop this nonsense of branding anyone who speaks up a racist or an islamophobe to shut them up. We can't continue to keep burying our heads in the sand and lying about these things we have a problem and if we're going to move past it feelings are going to get hurt. Virtue signalling and social brownie points dont matter anymore. We need to work together as a society to move passed this and if people start to wake up soon we it will be able.

I agree but the right needs to take some of the blame here as well. It isn't just a few nuts on the right either, the current POTUS got elected with banning Muslims as a large central pillar for his campaign. The image giving out about a Muslim walking past the attack in London got widely shared trying to promote a backlash against ordinary muslims. Plenty of the right have been involved in scaremongering suggesting it is the biggest disaster in Europe (piss off, I would be more worried about dying in a car crash on holidays than I would in a terrorist attack- yes we have to deal with this but Europe is hardly a crisis zone). Finally many seem to be unable to see that it is not just the issues in Islam at play. We will still have mass shootings in the states and other attacks. Islam modernising (or more realistically more al la carte Muslims coming along like we have in Christianity) will help but it won't be the be all and end all of solutions.

Note I am not saying the above applies to Depp, just providing some balance to his complaints about the left (which I can see but I also feel they are partially due to the reactions of the right , which are partially due to the reactions on the left in a nice feedback loop of partisanship).

Christy42 wrote: »

I agree but the right needs to take some of the blame here as well. It isn't just a few nuts on the right either, the current POTUS got elected with banning Muslims as a large central pillar for his campaign. The image giving out about a Muslim walking past the attack in London got widely shared trying to promote a backlash against ordinary muslims. Plenty of the right have been involved in scaremongering suggesting it is the biggest disaster in Europe (piss off, I would be more worried about dying in a car crash on holidays than I would in a terrorist attack- yes we have to deal with this but Europe is hardly a crisis zone). Finally many seem to be unable to see that it is not just the issues in Islam at play. We will still have mass shootings in the states and other attacks. Islam modernising (or more realistically more al la carte Muslims coming along like we have in Christianity) will help but it won't be the be all and end all of solutions.

Note I am not saying the above applies to Depp, just providing some balance to his complaints about the left (which I can see but I also feel they are partially due to the reactions of the right , which are partially due to the reactions on the left in a nice feedback loop of partisanship).

Lets try avoid the so called muslim ban on here, its been done to death at this stage and this thread doesnt need any further murking agreed there is a lot of racism and hate and actual islamophobia at play and it is wrong. Suppose using the term ''the left'' I was incorrect, It shouldnt be the left needs to do this and the right needs to do this, it should be people need to do this.

I wonder if the West stopped killing innocent people in North Africa would terrorism decrease or increase? To answer my own question, I think it would decrease. Perhaps the West could start there in their quest to deal with terrorism.

mikeoneilly wrote: »

The west bombed the crap out of the mid-east for no gain except fermenting radicalism.

Also inexplicably removed dictators that were keeping extremists in check -like democracy was ever going work there anyway.

why is this? because they are savages unable to self govern and they need a strong arm dictator to keep them in check? the problem in the middle east isnt american intervention and it isnt the population. Its evil men with a militant interpretation of islam using the faith and the faithful to further their own evil goals and grey areas in the quran which make this a perfectly literal interpretation.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder if the West stopped killing innocent people in North Africa would terrorism decrease or increase? To answer my own question, I think it would decrease. Perhaps the West could start there in their quest to deal with terrorism.

With the stated goals and M.O. of isis currently there would be no change, if anything there would be an increase as it would be easier for them to recruit without western intervention. Isis' stated aims are expanding the caliphate and world domination, not to get revenge on the west. To think pulling out is going to magically solve the problem overnight is completely ignorant of the facts.

Depp wrote: »

With the stated goals and M.O. of isis currently there would be no change, if anything there would be an increase as it would be easier for them to recruit without western intervention. Isis' stated aims are expanding the caliphate and world domination, not to get revenge on the west. To think pulling out is going to magically solve the problem overnight is completely ignorant of the facts.

Apologies for being ignorant of the facts. I just thought that seeing fellow citizens and relatives, sometimes women and children, being bombed to death in their own country by Western powers might anger some young men and cause them to join Islamic terrorist organisations. You are obviously right, they wouldn't care less.

Widdershins wrote: »

In that case why the terrorists kidnap, enslave and repeatedly rape girls and women from their own countries?

''The West'' is not all culpable for civilian deaths, anyway. And a number of those deaths occurred because Isil use civilians as human shields!:(

I can't see how the terrorists' behaviour in their own country is relevant to my point. If the West drops a bomb and kills a child then the West is responsible for that child's death.

Widdershins wrote: »

They don't need to speak to other isil members to become soldiers of the caliphate, that's what makes isil so dangerous. Not sure how to address what has already been done, and isil can't be placated and will continue to enjoy murdering people of all ethnicities, probably in Europe as well as the East.

That is precisely why they don't need to speak. ISIL is capitalising on anti-western feelings predominantly.

bubblypop wrote: »

True, they obviously don't have the knowledge nor the munitions to cause widespread destruction. Instead they rely on everyday objects.
I don't understand why Irish people think that any of these attacks are worse or different then what happened in these islands for 30 years.
And I'm not referring to the ideologies, just the actions.

???? They have, moreso than the IRA did, they are quite capable of making bombs and they have stockpiles of guns? Also compared to the IRA they are extremely unpredictable and have not only the soldiers of the caliphate like the London attacker, aka Lone Wolves, but also an international network of affiliated terror groups.

Isis abroad have access to chemical weapons, and there are types of them that are not difficult to produce.

And alongside the command to use vehicles to kill multiple people, there was a command to poison food and water supplies. It doesn't take a genius to see they are very dangerous, as security analysts have been telling us for years.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Apologies for being ignorant of the facts. I just thought that seeing fellow citizens and relatives, sometimes women and children, being bombed to death in their own country by Western powers might anger some young men and cause them to join Islamic terrorist organisations. You are obviously right, they wouldn't care less.

Look sorry for being short with you but these are the stated goals of isis. Its them vs everyone else and pulling out of the middle east wont make the problem go away. Now don't take this as me condoning carpet bombing of civilians the way its being done at the minute is all wrong imo. It should be boots on the ground fighting alongside iraqi and syrians and helping them knock back isis and retake the strongholds theyve taken.

Did you not bother to watch the BBC documentary someone posted about sharia law in britain? It's just more comfortable to take the reassuring anecdote of a boards poster, I suppose.
It was stated a number of times that capital and corporal punishment aren't part of british sharia law. Any insinuations are a product of a suspicious mind.