UK Government's foreign policy 1980-present

[Barn]

Quite.

I wish some people would get that - these attacks are not a hit back at us because of foreign policy, it's simply because we aren't Muslims, or even the correct "flavour" of Muslim. The attacks are an attempt to destroy our successful society and our way of life.

Entirely right.

And even if we were one of the "causes" of terrorism (Corbyn's word choice), how can it be right that our policy decisions should be based on doing what terrorists want us to do?

 

[KN1]

Entirely right.

And even if we were one of the "causes" of terrorism (Corbyn's word choice), how can it be right that our policy decisions should be based on doing what terrorists want us to do?

Corbyn obviously wants terrorism defeated which he has shown by voting against anti-terror legislation 56 times out of 58.
Dianne "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" Abbott is just as bad and she could be home secretary in a few weeks.

Corbyn the spineless terrorist apologist couldn't even take one question from the press this morning before he scuttled back to his allotment, what a dangerous and deluded man who may potentially be the next pm.

 

[NSEFAN]

Quite.

I wish some people would get that - these attacks are not a hit back at us because of foreign policy, it's simply because we aren't Muslims, or even the correct "flavour" of Muslim. The attacks are an attempt to destroy our successful society and our way of life.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, such awful people don't just come from nowhere. I would say that we have had a hand in creating the conditions in which those kinds of people thrive. In that sense, our foreign policy is/has in part been to blame for the end result.

 

[AlterEgo]

Regardless of whether that's true or not, such awful people don't just come from nowhere. I would say that we have had a hand in creating the conditions in which those kinds of people thrive. In that sense, our foreign policy is/has in part been to blame for the end result.

I think we need to look closer at policy at home, which is where our terrorists come from and thrive.

 

[NSEFAN]

I think we need to look closer at policy at home, which is where our terrorists come from and thrive.

That's true as well.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's true as well.

Whether we have the maturity as a nation to have a constructive debate about it without excessive navel-gazing is another matter. However, something feels a bit different after Manchester.

I can't say I like the *idea* of soldiers on London's streets, and I suspect Army top brass won't either.

The deployment I have seen so far (I work on Millbank and regularly walk up Whitehall) is a motley crew of Household Division Guards (Irish), a few RLC soldiers, and soldiers of 2 PARA. I'm quite ambivalent about their presence; there is no tension and the soldiers seem relaxed. However, the Army in London has first-rate PR value. Visitors to the city will normally encounter the Army through things like watching the Changing of the Guard, or looking at the magnificent horses at Horseguards Parade, not a 6 foot 6 paratrooper with an SLR as has been the case this week.

I think the soldiers will be gone in the next week.

 

[Barn]

I think we need to look closer at policy at home, which is where our terrorists come from and thrive.

I think we need to stop blaming ourselves. There are few better countries to be a Muslim than the UK.

 

[najaB]

I can't say I like the *idea* of soldiers on London's streets, and I suspect Army top brass won't either.

I suspect there are very few people who do.

I think the soldiers will be gone in the next week.

Hopefully, you'll be proven correct.

 

[KN1]

I suspect there are very few people who do.
Hopefully, you'll be proven correct.

I do.

 

[najaB]

I think we need to stop blaming ourselves. There are few better countries to be a Muslim than the UK.

It's not a matter of blame. That lies solely and completely on the people who commit these attacks.

The question that's being asked - and quite rightly so - is to what extent have the policies of The West (and the UK in particular) contributed to creating an environment where these people are induced to act.

 

[najaB]

I do.

So you *want* an environment where there is a need for the Army to be on permanent patrol duties in London?

 

[AlterEgo]

I think we need to stop blaming ourselves. There are few better countries to be a Muslim than the UK.

That is true.

For clarity, I think we should examine why it is so easy for people to become radicalised rather than hand-wringing and blaming ourselves.

 

[KN1]

So you *want* an environment where there is a need for the Army to be on permanent patrol duties in London?

Stop putting words in my mouth, I don't want one but things are only going to get worse so soldiers on the streets are welcome by me however much they are largely for show.

Anyway if Corbyn gets in you'll have no need to worry as soldiers will be a thing you'll only read about in history books.

 

[AlterEgo]

Stop putting words in my mouth, I don't want one but things are only going to get worse so soldiers on the streets are welcome by me however much they are largely for show.

Anyway if Corbyn gets in you'll have no need to worry as soldiers will be a thing you'll only read about in history books.

I don't think I understand why you *like* the idea though.

Things are not "only going to get worse", that's certainly not a predetermined outcome, and I recall people saying the same about 7/7 (where, fortunately, the risk subsided soon after and we've not had anything approaching as bad until Manchester). I think that's a throwaway comment that can't be used to justify anything.

 

[Barn]

It's not a matter of blame. That lies solely and completely on the people who commit these attacks.

The question that's being asked - and quite rightly so - is to what extent have the policies of The West (and the UK in particular) contributed to creating an environment where these people are induced to act.

I just don't think the premise of that question is correct. By blowing up teenage girls, terrorists have forfeited any right to have us consider their grievance. Why should we respond to the premeditated murder of children by figuring out what we do that they don't like and stopping it, if that is contrary to our interests overall? Why should terrorism ever change our policy in the terrorists' favour?

In any event, what is left to consider? We already know that terrorists cite our foreign policy as an excuse. It's not a new development. In fact, it's almost outdated. The reason given by Isis now is usually just that terrorists are responding to the caliphate's call to target crusaders.

I see the benefit in considering terrorism as part of the overall risk / benefit analysis when thinking about future interventions. I find it sickening that Corbyn would give this speech in retrospect, when families are still in the midst of grief or are worried about critically ill children.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Corbyn the spineless terrorist apologist couldn't even take one question from the press this morning before he scuttled back to his allotment, what a dangerous and deluded man who may potentially be the next pm.

Corbyn seems not to want to mention the nuances of Russian foreign policy covering the period of 1980 onwards. It too was a member of the UN Security Council.

 

[najaB]

Stop putting words in my mouth, I don't want one but things are only going to get worse so soldiers on the streets are welcome by me however much they are largely for show.

Anyway if Corbyn gets in you'll have no need to worry as soldiers will be a thing you'll only read about in history books.

So, essentially you're not ok with the idea of soldiers being on the streets​ but you do understand the necessity for it.

I, for one, hope that seeing armed soldiers on the street never feels normal.

 

[najaB]

Why should we respond to the premeditated murder of children by figuring out what we do that they don't like and stopping it, if that is contrary to our interests overall?

Because if we always do what we've always done then we'll always get what we've always got.

 

[Barn]

Because if we always do what we've always done then we'll always get what we've always got.

Only if you accept the premise that they've done that in response to our actions. What prompted the German Christmas market attack, or the Brussels airport attack, or today's massacre of Coptic Christians in Egypt?

Even if you do accept the premise, surely it must be right to form and execute policy that we feel to be right, and not based on what we think would make ISIS happy? We can put our energy into better funding intelligence and policing resources.

 

[najaB]

Only if you accept the premise that they've done that in response to our actions.

The thing that matters is that *they* say that they are doing it in response to our actions, so if we continue to do the same thing then they will feel justified to continue the same thing. Sometimes being smart and being right aren't the same thing.

Even if you do accept the premise, surely it must be right to form and execute policy that we feel to be right, and not based on what we think would make ISIS happy? We can put our energy into better funding intelligence and policing resources.

If both sides continue to act solely based on what they feel to be right, pretty soon there will be nobody left. Sometimes the best strategic outcome requires some tactical compromises.

 

[Barn]

The thing that matters is that *they* say that they are doing it in response to our actions, so if we continue to do the same thing then they will feel justified to continue the same thing. Sometimes being smart and being right aren't the same thing.

But they very often don't, that's the point. The 2005 tube bombers might have, but ISIS have repeatedly proven themselves quite happy to kill without any purported justification.

If both sides continue to act solely based on what they feel to be right, pretty soon there will be nobody left. Sometimes the best strategic outcome requires some tactical compromises.

Appeasing ISIS simply doesn't work, and if it did it would be cowardly, frit and profoundly unethical. As you suggest, the only way we could appease them is by ceasing to exist. It is our very existence and success that they hate.

 

[najaB]

But they very often don't, that's the point. The 2005 tube bombers might have, but ISIS have repeatedly proven themselves quite happy to kill without any purported justification.

Isis' stated reason for existence is to establish a Caliphate in the Levant, in direct response to the Modern Crusades by the West.

Appeasing ISIS simply doesn't work, and if it did it would be cowardly, frit and profoundly unethical. As you suggest, the only way we could appease them is by ceasing to exist. It is our very existence and success that they hate.

I agree that appeasing ISIS would be a foolhardy tactic, however the two things that they need more than anything else are money and recruits. Changing the narrative and our actions to make it clear that we are not anti-Islam will starve them of both.

 

[Barn]

Isis' stated reason for existence is to establish a Caliphate in the Levant, in direct response to the Modern Crusades by the West.
I agree that appeasing ISIS would be a foolhardy tactic, however the two things that they need more than anything else are money and recruits. Changing the narrative and our actions to make it clear that we are not anti-Islam will starve them of both.

They've largely given up on the caliphate goal and are encouraging potential European recruits simply to kill people here rather than to fight for the caliphate in the Levant.

I don't really understand how any university educated person can really think that we are anti-Islam, although it doesn't help when Corbyn and his Stop The War comrades deliberately corrupt "bomb ISIS in Syria" into "we're bombing Syria" and seemingly invent mass civilian casualties of the RAF which as far as I can tell just don't exist.

 

[Bromley boy]

Changing the narrative and our actions to make it clear that we are not anti-Islam will starve them of both.

I really struggle to see where you're coming from here.

Isis themselves have killed many thousands of Muslims over the last few years. Far more than western airstrikes. This fact is apparently lost on, or deliberately ignored by, those who join Isis to oppose "modern crusades".

The UK is blessed with one of the most open, tolerant and successfully-secular societies in the world (perhaps too tolerant, as is becoming increasingly obvious). It is streets ahead of all Islamic-majority states with respect to matters of democracy, religious freedom and human rights.

in what way do you propose that we show we are not "anti-Islam" in a way which will deter potential Isis recruits, and will still be compatible with our democratic and secular society, which Isis are hell-bent on destroying?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think this is a question of Islamist terrorism being caused either by Western foreign policy or by the terrorists' unconditional hate of Western society. The core of the terrorist movements will always hate Western society but the behaviour of the Western powers helps them to attract much more support in donations and recruits and therefore makes them much more dangerous.

For what it's worth I think the current limited involvement of the West in Syria is necessary to counter the atrocities of ISIS, even though the atrocities were probably committed with at least an eye to forcin the West to get involved. But deeper Western involvement on the ground would create more support for ISIS in the wider Middle East as well as more targets for attacks in the region.