Mellsblue wrote:
The fact they're mental, that parts of the Koran can be interpreted as demanding these atrocities if you're mental, that they hate our liberal way of life. There are any number of things.
The Manchester bomber was from a family that actively opposed Gadafi and moved to the UK as refugees, as Gadafi and his regime were a threat to their lives. Why would he be so pissed off at western foreign policy that brought Gadafi's reign to an end? If he was, why would he attack a concert featuring an often scantily dressed woman with an audience predominantly full of girls as revenge. Possibly for the same reason that Malala Yousafzai was attacked - that it was against his warped beliefs.
Do you fancy explaining to me why these idiots carry out attacks in countries that are absolutely nothing to do with western foreign policy if the sole reason for these attacks are western foreign policy?
Unfortunately, the world isn't as black and white as you want it to be; the colours of geo-politics, trade, war, and demographics are myriad shades of grey. Furthermore it would be naive to dismiss how Britain and the US have shaped the post WW2 international order, including order in the ME. Whilst Britain doesn't wield the power it once did, it isn't a minor player. It has a permanent seat on the UN security council, is a nuclear power, and has one of the strongest economies in the world (including a formidable financial centre in London).
There isn't one reason for the rise of modern militant Islam; its origins are complex: they're rooted in history, the New American century, poorly sourced hadiths, Qutbism, and of course Wahhabism.
Since Britain's decline as an Imperial power, its geopolitical planners realised, that in order for Britain to retain some semblance of economic and military power it would be imperative that she align herself with American FP and its capitalist hegemony (the "New American Century").
That's not conspiraloon, tin foil hat, reptile queen of Draco hocus pocus. It's a fact, and in terms of the M-Eastern sphere, Britain has - but not always - sided with Sam. The underlying reason for this is not altruistic, or to spread liberal democracy, but to protect her own vital interests. The good news is that we get to enjoy "liberal" values, and various consumer products that make our lives, for the most part, pleasant. The bad news is conservation of energy: whilst we're enjoying the benefits, someone else is suffering.
BFP clearly has played some part in influencing muslim attitudes towards the west;
Britain is one of the world's largest arms exporters. Some of its clients have included ME despots. Now imagine for a moment, that your family had been obliterated by German made missile technology, and your friends had been tortured and mutilated by State interrogators trained by German Intelligence operatives/Special forces. Would you feel some level of animosity for Germans? I'd imagine you would. Therefore you would be very susceptible to the teachings of Insurgents/Rebels who posited an evil alliance between your own Government and the Germans, and everything else associated with the sustenance of their powers. I'd imagine it's the same for ordinary Schmoe muslims who have suffered immensely at the hands of their own despots, and the "interventionism" of foreign powers. That's how these guys are recruited. An similar example closer to home is obviously NI: despite the differences in ideology, and difference in scale, there are similarities, particularly in how young men (and women) were recruited by terrorist groups through a perceived (and/or real) sense of injustice, and/or oppression, sectarianism, "them versus us" etc. etc. all exacerbated by incidents such as Bloody Sunday, internment, a protestant elite enjoying the good things in life etc. all of which provided the IRA with a persuasive recruiting sergeant. It would be a
non sequitur to conclude that the British State were inherently evil. On the contrary, they made attempts to redress the situation, but it was too little and far too late. In a geopolitical context, Britain and America's relations with the ME has resulted in a similar mindset developing amongst Muslims, and that has been exacerbated by the invasion of Iraq (over 1,000,000 dead), whose
Casus Belli was falsified information, and various other coalition interventionist acts that have occurred since the beginning of the 21st century. Again it doesn't mean that Britain/US are inherently evil. Perhaps they thought they were doing the right thing? Of course some have suggested that a perpetual state of war in these countries suits western powers, since, if ME powers were to unite, they'd be a fearsome opponent (I think SA is on the way to becoming a global power). Also, wars are profitable. WW1 produced several thousand Billionaires. I'd be confident that wars in the ME expand the global credit supply. Whatever about the whys and hows, the fact is that BFP has been influential in the continued suppuration of Radical Islam.
Radical Islam has undoubtedly been influenced by Qutbism, and in that sense, yes, militant muslims (and to a lesser extent run of the mill muslims) would have a contempt for "corrupting" western liberal values, capitalism, and materialism. Wahhabism is probably for a whole new thread. Actually Qutbism is worth a separate discussion too. I merely included it here to emphasise its role in nurturing contempt for western values, at least amongst Radical Islam's main players.
Yes, Islamic terrorism hasn't been confined to the UK. ISIS want to replace the current order with a global caliphate, so naturally enough, they're not going to limit targets to the UK/USA/France. That said, their primary targets are the latter countries.
