Proving the link between British foreign policy and domestic terrorism

Proving the link between British foreign policy and domestic terrorism

Despite explicit warnings from MI5, politicians are still refusing to acknowledge how the UK’s role in the Iraq invasion led to terrorism at home
This month three leading British politicians from different parties have committed themselves to the same self-seeking and potentially lethal fallacy.

Each claimed that British foreign policy made no contribution to the risk of terrorism against British people.

Predictably, the three included Tony Blair, who has never acknowledged the consequences of his decision to join our country to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

On 6 July, the eve of the 10th anniversary of the London bombings, he was interviewed on LBC radio by his former Cabinet colleague, Tessa Jowell. She asked him: “What do you say to those people now who say that the causes of 7/7, and indeed subsequent terrorist attacks, can all be traced back to our involvement in the invasion of Iraq?”

Blair gave a rambling reply. “One of the most important things to do is to look at things in the bigger context. I mean, 9/11 in New York was probably the first really large-scale terrorist attack and obviously we had certain foreign policy responses to that. The problem is that even those countries that didn’t, for example, participate in Iraq at all - like France - are now subject to these attacks. You see them most recently in Tunisia but you see even countries like Belgium or Norway, who are countries who have no real foreign policy presence, are also subject to this.

“At a certain point we have got to realise that this is a global problem. You see it in Africa, you see it in the Far East, you see in Central Asia and, of course, you see it in the Middle East. And the only way of dealing with it ultimately is for people to come together, whatever their faith background, and say we're united against this terrorism and to say we're not going to allow anyone to excuse themselves by saying that the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government. It’s the responsibility of those who carry out those acts of terrorism and those who incite them.”

Logical fallacy

We will turn shortly to the honesty of this reply, but note here that it contains a clear logical fallacy. The fact that other countries have suffered terrorist attacks for other reasons does not refute the proposition that the Iraq war made terrorism more likely in Britain. One could equally argue (as did tobacco companies for many years) that because some non-smokers die of lung cancer smoking does not increase the risk of lung cancer.

Blair was followed on 17 July, by Liz Kendall, the only one of Labour’s four leadership candidates willing to campaign as his heir.

Interviewed by the Evening Standard she said that it was “totally and utterly wrong” to suggest that terrorist atrocities were caused by British foreign policy. She added: “As if the world is divided into adults and children. Nobody makes anybody behead someone and put the picture on the internet. Nobody makes somebody take a Kalashnikov and kill two of my constituents [victims of the Tunisian beach atrocity].”

This is another confused argument. Ms Kendall makes a fair but obvious point in suggesting that British foreign policy gives no one any excuse to commit evil by terrorism. But again, this does not refute the suggestion that our foreign policy might make such evil more likely.

Most important, David Cameron on 20 July announced a five-year strategy against terrorism. His speech included this convoluted passage which echoed Tony Blair’s denial of the role of the Iraq war. “When people say ‘it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq war that people are attacking the West’, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack - happened before the Iraq war.” Of course, but yet again this has no relevance to the question of whether that war, and subsequent foreign policy, have added to the risk of terrorism.

Blair, Kendall and Cameron, and all their followers, should consider the evidence of Baroness Manningham-Buller to the Iraq inquiry five years ago. They have no need to wait for the distant day when the inquiry report is published because this evidence was clear and unequivocal.

As Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, she was the director general of MI5, the UK’s domestic intelligence agency, from October 2002 until April 2007, that is, for a few months before the US-UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and for four years afterwards while the US and UK were occupying the country.

On 20 July 2010, she gave evidence to the Iraq inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot. She was asked, “To what extent did the conflict in Iraq exacerbate the overall threat that your service and your fellow services were having to deal with from international terrorism?” She replied: “Substantially.”

- Continued: http://www.middleeasteye.net/essays/proving-link-between-british-foreign-policy-and-domestic-terrorism-516596279#.dpuf

So why is it there was actually attempts by Al-Qaeda to target Britain and the US before the Iraq war?
Nobody has denied it had an effect, but that does not excuse the rise which comes from the fact a poor narative is predominent among Muslims that see the west as the enemy.
Becuase we helped Kuwait? Antisemitism which denies the right for Israel to exist?

More poor apologetic reasons to justify the real problem of terrorism , Islam itself where it was a view that it was wrong to have foreign troops in Saudi.
That is a religious view point and all because we helped Kuwait
You need to look further back as to what the cause is.
You also clearly escape the antisemitism which is a major factor in the rise of islamic extremism.

Didge wrote:So why is it there was actually attempts by Al-Qaeda to target Britain and the US before the Iraq war?
Nobody has denied it had an effect, but that does not excuse the rise which comes from the fact a poor narative is predominent among Muslims that see the west as the enemy.
Becuase we helped Kuwait? Antisemitism which denies the right for Israel to exist?

More poor apologetic reasons to justify the real problem of terrorism , Islam itself where it was a view that it was wrong to have foreign troops in Saudi.
That is a religious view point and all because we helped Kuwait
You need to look further back as to what the cause is.
You also clearly escape the antisemitism which is a major factor in the rise of islamic extremism.

Like the way you edited your post.

Lol!

It's riddled with more fallacies.

You're using the same fallacy as Cameron by citing a previous attack. I'm talking about 7/7 and Iraq and foreign policy didn't start at 9/11 or 7/7.

You mention Kuwait. Do you really think we were there to liberate or stop Saddam from acquiring new oil fields? You're supposed to be the historian, so look it up.

So nothing to refute my points

Again would ISIS-Al-Qaeda-The Taliban-Boko Haram exist without the following?

Islam
Martydom
Sharia
Transgression
Jihad


Here we go again on oil, where you failed to answer my points proving this is a left wing and Muslim apologist argument.
I suppose we went to war with germany when they invaded Poland over oil now.
I suggest you start reading some real history and realise that both extremismt and non Muslim extremists believe the same incorrect narative that is peddeled by apologists such as yourself thinking there is a crusade against Islam
That is why it is so easy to turn Muslims to violence based off falsehoods of victimization to Islam.
Its time you woke up to the truth as you and others that believe this, are part of the problem.


What is the excuse for Boko Haram?
Where is the invasion for youi to use as an excuse for denying the findemental facts it is a problem within Islam itself and stright from doctrines?

Muslim aggression And Muslim terrorism didn't suddenly start after the Iraq war... it has been going on for over a thousand years...

Tommy Monk wrote:Muslim aggression And Muslim terrorism didn't suddenly start after the Iraq war... it has been going on for over a thousand years...

But the Christians started it. Don't ever forget that.

Ever!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Muslim aggression And Muslim terrorism didn't suddenly start after the Iraq war... it has been going on for over a thousand years...

But the Christians started it. Don't ever forget that.

Bullshit

So what transgressions were made by the peoples of North Africa to the extent that the Arabs conquered them?
Does transgression mean in islam once attacked, you can take all lands off the aggressor?
If that is the case, then your methodology would mean Israel has every right to the lands it won from the Arab nations aggressively attacking them.
Surely it works both ways?
It also shows in the Muslim mindset, Christianity means any nation Christian, thus attacking an excuse to conquer any because they are Christian, even if that nation never attacked them.
There is zero evidence to show anything other than the Arabs taking advantage of two Empires who had been at war with each other for a very long time and were thus weakend. The Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. You have to remember Islamic sources, written way later of course, are obivously going to claim being transgressed against, to cover up for their aggression with unprovoked attacks on nations.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Muslim aggression And Muslim terrorism didn't suddenly start after the Iraq war... it has been going on for over a thousand years...

But the Christians started it. Don't ever forget that.

Care to explain that...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:




But the Christians started it. Don't ever forget that.

Care to explain that...?

Christian imperialism predates Islam.

Didge wrote:So nothing to refute my points

Again would ISIS-Al-Qaeda-The Taliban-Boko Haram exist without the following?

Islam
Martydom
Sharia
Transgression
Jihad


Here we go again on oil, where you failed to answer my points proving this is a left wing and Muslim apologist argument.
I suppose we went to war with germany when they invaded Poland over oil now.
I suggest you start reading some real history and realise that both extremismt and non Muslim extremists believe the same incorrect narative that is peddeled by apologists such as yourself thinking there is a crusade against Islam
That is why it is so easy to turn Muslims to violence based off falsehoods of victimization to Islam.
Its time you woke up to the truth as you and others that believe this, are part of the problem.


What is the excuse for Boko Haram?
Where is the invasion for youi to use as an excuse for denying the findemental facts it is a problem within Islam itself and stright from doctrines?

Yes, all these groups would still exist even if there was no relgion. Becuase of what they perceive is being done to them by the West.

You don't get rid of violence with religion.

true fuzzy

but you do get an awful lot of violence WITH religion

Tommy Monk wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Muslim aggression And Muslim terrorism didn't suddenly start after the Iraq war... it has been going on for over a thousand years...

But the Christians started it. Don't ever forget that.

Care to explain that...?

Roman Catholic Church?
You know the one that came to Britannia and murdered the Druids

Lord Foul wrote:true fuzzy

but you do get an awful lot of violence WITH religion

Violence with religion is just violence with a theme.

Reasons to kill each other will still be there.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Care to explain that...?

Roman Catholic Church?
You know the one that came to Britannia and murderer the Druids

Lol!!

Muslim aggression starts with Mohammed and his gang of bandits who murdered, robbed and raped their way around the place in their selfish and evil quest for wealth and power... this was not about fighting against unfair imperial oppression!!!


And can't you see that it is the islamists behaviour which is provoking the responses againt them!?


Nobody cares if a load of twats wants to rub their noses into the floor and stick their arses in the air chanting mumbo jumbo 5 times a day... they can believe what they want... as long as they leave everyone else alone to believe whatever they want to believe... but they don't just leave it there do they...!?


They start trying to impose it all on others with the usual hostility and aggression being inflicted on others to enforce control...


This is totally unacceptable and this is why they are subject to action in response!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Muslim aggression starts with Mohammed and his gang of bandits who murdered, robbed and raped their way around the place in their selfish and evil quest for wealth and power... this was not about fighting against unfair imperial oppression!!!


And can't you see that it is the islamists behaviour which is provoking the responses againt them!?


Nobody cares if a load of twats wants to rub their noses into the floor and stick their arses in the air chanting mumbo jumbo 5 times a day... they can believe what they want... as long as they leave everyone else alone to believe whatever they want to believe... but they don't just leave it there do they...!?


They start trying to impose it all on others with the usual hostility and aggression being inflicted on others to enforce control...


This is totally unacceptable and this is why they are subject to action in response!!!

Umm Tommy
Christians started that a solid 4 centuries before Mohammad was born.

In Fact the Last Group of religious fundamentalist to attempt genocide in the British isles were the Christians. Assuming you have Anglo Celtic blood, your ancestors were likely forced by the sword to become Christian .

The Romans were about before Christianity... maybe it's all their fault...


But you miss the points...



Muslim aggression started with Mohammed and his gang of bandits who murdered, robbed and raped their way around the place in their selfish and evil quest for wealth and power...this was not about fighting against unfair imperial oppression!!!


And can't you see that it is the islamists behaviour which is provoking the responses againt them!?


Nobody cares if a load of twats wants to rub their noses into the floor and stick their arses in the air chanting mumbo jumbo 5 times a day... they can believe what they want... as long as they leave everyone else alone to believe whatever they want to believe... but they don't just leave it there do they...!?


They start trying to impose it all on others with the usual hostility and aggression being inflicted on others to enforce control...


This is totally unacceptable and this is why they are subject to action in response!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The Romans were about before Christianity... maybe it's all their fault...


But you miss the points...



Muslim aggression started with Mohammed and his gang of bandits who murdered, robbed and raped their way around the place in their selfish and evil quest for wealth and power...this was not about fighting against unfair imperial oppression!!!


And can't you see that it is the islamists behaviour which is provoking the responses againt them!?


Nobody cares if a load of twats wants to rub their noses into the floor and stick their arses in the air chanting mumbo jumbo 5 times a day... they can believe what they want... as long as they leave everyone else alone to believe whatever they want to believe... but they don't just leave it there do they...!?


They start trying to impose it all on others with the usual hostility and aggression being inflicted on others to enforce control...


This is totally unacceptable and this is why they are subject to action in response!!!

Christianity, and in likelihood Islam that followed, would never have taken off and grown so big if it wasn't for the being spread by the Roman's swords.

And I have no clue where you get your version of history by Mohammad didn't do that, he was nonviolent like Christ, in fact Islam in general was very peaceful and it was the Christians that were the aggressor (crusades etc) until Islam was almost wiped out by the Mongols and lost it intellectuals, since that point it has been the religion of hill shepherds (in the middle east at least) .

And western Behaviors promotes the response against it, we just keep going in circle tit for tat..
Well at this current point the west is SO MUCH stronger we can afford to try and be the bigger/better person and stop the cycle.

Bollocks!!!


Mohammed was non violent and much like Jesus...!!!???



Fuck off!!!


And you have the cheek to question my knowledge of history...!!!???



Unbelievable!!!



But now I can see why you are such a misguided fool and a twat!!!

Well he didn't even really travel outside the Arabian peninsula So your raped and murder his way around is Just LUDICROUS.
It is what dickheads post on Youtube not based in Fact at ALL.

he had NO soldiers until Meccan authorities sent them to Captured him for Execution, Unlike Christ he converted them and they became his body guards. So hard to compare after that point Since Christ failed and was nailed to Cross while Mohammad continued for another 2 decades. What is 100% is that when Either got military power to kill pagans they did. 

He traveled to Mecca (from a cave just outside of Mecca) and when they would not let him in he simply walked a circuit around mecca (now part of the hajj)
The next year he came with more followers, this time they included the solider sent to kill him, But again when denied entry he simply walked the circuit around mecca. Each year the number of followers grew and grew and it was this Peaceful demonstration that convince many meccas to join him.. eventually the meccan authorities had no choice but to let him in.



You have to be PRETTY FUCKING DUMB
to believe that a you can form a religion as wide spread as Islam on rape and murder. Maybe if you weren't a racsit You wouldn't think people with dark skin people are magic monsters following some daemon like thing. They are people following a person that made the same promises as the guy before him. the same message as Jesus. because most religions preach the idea of kindness to your fellow man.

Dumb shits like you join ISIS because you just want to hate them, because you are stupid. Grow a brain, people are people, the sky is the sky there is no magic or mystery to the way these institutions are formed and grow.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:So nothing to refute my points

Again would ISIS-Al-Qaeda-The Taliban-Boko Haram exist without the following?

Islam
Martydom
Sharia
Transgression
Jihad


Here we go again on oil, where you failed to answer my points proving this is a left wing and Muslim apologist argument.
I suppose we went to war with germany when they invaded Poland over oil now.
I suggest you start reading some real history and realise that both extremismt and non Muslim extremists believe the same incorrect narative that is peddeled by apologists such as yourself thinking there is a crusade against Islam
That is why it is so easy to turn Muslims to violence based off falsehoods of victimization to Islam.
Its time you woke up to the truth as you and others that believe this, are part of the problem.


What is the excuse for Boko Haram?
Where is the invasion for youi to use as an excuse for denying the findemental facts it is a problem within Islam itself and stright from doctrines?

Yes, all these groups would still exist even if there was no relgion. Becuase of what they perceive is being done to them by the West.

You don't get rid of violence with religion.

I never said you get rid of violence if you got rid of religion, but there would be no belief of Martydom and thus how many people would stupidly think they were going to heaven based off killing people?
It takes a belief system for that and if people are less likely to give their lives with no belief system, then clearly religion plays a very derisive part. Its aspects like this which make idiots think they can willingly go and stab, shoot and blow up people with no care if they did, the point you miss,

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Care to explain that...?

Roman Catholic Church?
You know the one that came to Britannia and murdered the Druids

Wrong.

The Pagan Romans destroyed the druids, christianity to Britain was actually mainly peaceful and incorporated many pagan beliefs into saints.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Care to explain that...?

Roman Catholic Church?
You know the one that came to Britannia and murdered the Druids

Wrong.

The Pagan Romans destroyed the druids, christianity to Britain was actually mainly peaceful and incorporated many pagan beliefs into saints.

not according to the remaining Druid teachings hidden, According to Christians Yes the Christians came in peaceful But Not according to ANY ONE ELSE.

And Greater Britannia include Ireland

So try and not simply history down to couple Christian tales about How kind they were Burning the Sacred groves

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:



Wrong.

The Pagan Romans destroyed the druids, christianity to Britain was actually mainly peaceful and incorporated many pagan beliefs into saints.

not according to the remaining Druid teachings hidden, According to Christians Yes the Christians came in peaceful But Not according to ANY ONE ELSE.

And Greater Britannia include Ireland

So try and not simply history down to couple Christian tales about How kind they were Burning the Sacred groves

Wrong again, it was the Romans that came to wipe out the druids, christianity was relatively peacefully in Britain and Ireland was not Britain or Greater Britania, as it was the Irish that started raiding the UK when the Romans left. You neglect they were many different tribes. In Fact early Christianity in the UK formed Celtic Christianity which was differernt from Pauline Christianity basically catholicism.
History is one thing you are not very good at Veya. So Christianity came to the Uk and spead very much without the sword. Later it was the Catholic church which seeked to eradicted the Celtic Christianity. St Augustine when he came was very surprised to find how widespread and thiving christianity was in Britain.


http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ancient/anglesey/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

Right have to go, see ya Veya have a good day

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:The Romans were about before Christianity... maybe it's all their fault...


But you miss the points...



Muslim aggression started with Mohammed and his gang of bandits who murdered, robbed and raped their way around the place in their selfish and evil quest for wealth and power...this was not about fighting against unfair imperial oppression!!!


And can't you see that it is the islamists behaviour which is provoking the responses againt them!?


Nobody cares if a load of twats wants to rub their noses into the floor and stick their arses in the air chanting mumbo jumbo 5 times a day... they can believe what they want... as long as they leave everyone else alone to believe whatever they want to believe... but they don't just leave it there do they...!?


They start trying to impose it all on others with the usual hostility and aggression being inflicted on others to enforce control...


This is totally unacceptable and this is why they are subject to action in response!!!

Christianity, and in likelihood Islam that followed, would never have taken off and grown so big if it wasn't for the being spread by the Roman's swords.

And I have no clue where you get your version of history by Mohammad didn't do that, he was nonviolent like Christ, in fact Islam in general was very peaceful and it was the Christians that were the aggressor (crusades etc) until Islam was almost wiped out by the Mongols and lost it intellectuals, since that point it has been the religion of hill shepherds (in the middle east at least) .

And western Behaviors promotes the response against it, we just keep going in circle tit for tat..
Well at this current point the west is SO MUCH stronger we can afford to try and be the bigger/better person and stop the cycle.

Complete bullshit again!!!


Mohammed and his gang of bandits did exactly what I said, everywhere they went... attacking and robbing everyone they found, and killing everyone who refused to bend over to them and join them in then attacking others...


It didn't take long before this large organised gang were too big for any local group to resist, and since the option being given to people was 'comply or die', it is easy to see how this evil spread...


The crusades didn't happen until after centuries of Muslim aggression and its spread across southern Europe, and which came to happen completely from Muslims pursuit of war and conquest!!!


All very well documented historical facts!!!



You are either lying or very misinformed...