The argument that the West bombed Daesh into existence (or that it will bomb it into extinction) or that this ideology grew out of our foreign policy errors or that closing borders does the terrorists work for them or that a bit of integration here, a little democracy there and a whole lot of peace, love and understanding will put the world to rights are naive platitudes. There is much, much more to it than that. We are over-simplifying the situation and falsifying the details to make them fit the political preoccupations of our own society. The West does not have a solution to this and there probably is none beyond containment and quarantine until Islam undergoes its own reformation or collapses upon itself. Try this for starters: What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic
You are conflating many different ideas into one package here and than shooting it all down on the basis of the weakest assumption. Let's state what we know, or should know. There is a lot of hate for the West in the Middle East. The West is blamed by the Middle East for its "aggression" (i.e. invasion of Middle East territories). Human behaviours follow a bell-curve of actions, from deepest laissez-faire to wildest-eyed fanatical loonyism, with chanting-in-the-streets-burning-effigies lying somewhere in the middle. The more people you piss off, the larger the anger bell-curve, the more you will see examples at the extreme ends of the sample. If the West can, through its own behaviour, stop creating specific anger against it through specific, wrong-headed actions - invasions, for example, which are believed to be motivated by oil-based greed/self-interest - the amount and pitch of anger may over time be reduced. This will gradually reduce the numbers of potential and active terrorists back down to a tiny loony-fringe level. This is where it starts. After a few decades, we may start to see a reduction in the sheer numbers of loons who want to do murder, at least in the UK, France, etc. Peace, love and democracy appear to have no place in the Middle East now than it did in the West's Dark Ages. You cannot teach that stuff with the barrel of a gun, people have to want to want it. The West has no solution to dictators like Saddam or Gaddafi, it's time it stopped pretending to itself that it has. A primitive country should be allowed to run its own affairs the way it sees fit, and be left alone unless it starts looking beyond its own borders. The First Gulf War was an example of how the West can react rationally to events in the Middle East. The Second Gulf War was a case of the West believing its own press, no better than any prima donna footballer in that respect.
Did anyone happen to see the TV news last night? I think it was on Sky. A reporter in France was interviewing a female and male (supposedly moderate Muslims, I assume)........the attitude of the male was pretty volatile IMO......... ........he was complaining about the heavyhanded way the French Police and Military are crashing into properties and arresting suspects..........he was saying 'we haven't even had time to grieve'.........I had in the back of my mind 'Who for?'
I saw something similar on channel 4 news, a very angry young muslim man , angry at the authorities for vigorously arresting suspects. Idiot.
No I'm not. I'm asking that we look at this issue without refracting it through western obsessions with foreign policy or trying to distort the subject to make it fit the preformed templates of our political preoccupations. The West is one enemy among many to this movement. The idea that its us and them in a battle of ideologies or that this is some sort of extreme cultural/ political insurgency is profoundly simplistic. I don't think people are even beginning to understand the fundamentals at work here. The more you dig the deeper it goes. Less spouting and more digging is what I'm saying.
Your conclusion is sound, at least. We in the West need to look at what we are doing and why, and how we can effect useful change - or at the very bleedin' least, not make things worse. No one is saying that there is a simple cause and effect situation here. The motivations behind the Daesh movement are many - territorial ambition, financial gain, possibly a certain amount of religious zealotry, the usual suspects. That's one side of it of the issue. How this political motivation is turned into action is another side. The goals of Daesh can only be pursued by recruiting "fighters" and the reason that there are recruits will arise from that religious zealotry ... but also from anger, resentment, outrage, revenge, disaffection ... boredom too, for all I know. The reasons for Daesh's existence and the reasons they are able to recruit are likely to overlap but are probably quite different overall, and just as likely require different treatment. It is possible, probably necessary, to address both aspects of this dilemma separately and it is likely the latter will be easier than the former.
The excellent Andrew Neil. And a good one from Julia Hartley-Brewer praising Sadiq Khan, but there is a sting in the tail. Islam is still rooted in the values of the dark ages – and until we accept that, we will never get rid of radicalism - Telegraph
Would he accept one ? I thought Andrew Neil would be a bit too right of centre for you Pete He is an excellent journalist though and one of the few who genuinely try to hold people to account irrespective of who they are and won't accept crap, Eddie Mair is anther one.
he has a habit of mixing up DEL,TMEandAME figures depending on how it suites his needs.bellend. anyway wrong thread.
I always think that Andrew Neil comes over as a bit of a wally on his late night show. He is extremely unfunny, but insists on making unfunny jokes continually. Maybe he doesn't write his own material, but if so, he needs to get someone else in. Other than that, I don't have much to say about him, though I assume he is the dog owner, so he can't be all bad.
I think he does a very good line in dry irony. And yes the dog is his, I recall him saying to some guest that he was more likely to get a straight answer out of the dog
