Frankly, the opposite worry is true; I think myself too malleable, too influenced and too changeable. I don’t want to sound like the sort of programmable prick that is easily influenced by books, but I am, so this characterisation both amuses and relieves me.
I’m obviously not as bad as I thought.
You are the most stubborn bloody git I’ve ever met! I say that with respect. 
When I think I’m correct, yeah. But I do change my mind. Loads.
Example; my position on EU membership has been all over the shop over the past few years. I was a firm “in” back in the mid 2000s, when I’d seen the benefits of Objective One money going to a city that Westminster had largely stopped giving a toss about, a firm out when the body chose financial institutions over democracy.
My current status is in, if it can be made more democratic and change its focus.
As I said, all over the shop.
And that’s before we even consider my complete volte-face on abusive posting styles on this site.
Appreciate the respect, and it’s reciprocated, but which pap have you been reading? 
Only two years ago you were calling people for all sorts (the old snide race number) for people wanting an exit…
I’m with you on this, Lou (not necessarily about the Stop the War Coalition, as I know too little about them, but certainly about the (now retracted) tweet).
Put simply, pinning the entire blame (or the vast bulk of the blame) for movements such as Islamic State, Al Qaida, Boko Haram and whatever else on the west is as dense as denying that the west bears any responsibility. Things are far more complex than that. Rafael Behr, who I don’t always agree with, put it very well in this piece in yesterday’s Guardian.
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
I’m with you on this, Lou (not necessarily about the Stop the War Coalition, as I know too little about them, but certainly about the (now retracted) tweet).
Put simply, pinning the entire blame (or the vast bulk of the blame) for movements such as Islamic State, Al Qaida, Boko Haram and whatever else on the west is as dense as denying that the west bears any responsibility. Things are far more complex than that. Rafael Behr, who I don’t always agree with, put it very well in this piece in yesterday’s Guardian.
Have a read of this.
This is particularly pertinent.
In Greek mythology, Cassandra was blessed with the power of prophecy, but cursed in that no one would ever heed her warnings. Eqbal Ahmad, the late political scientist, historian and expert in the study of terrorism, was a modern-day Cassandra.
In a speech at the University of Colorado, Boulder in October 1998, Ahmad warned that the U.S. policy in Afghanistan would backfire:
“In Islamic history, jihad as an international violent phenomenon had disappeared in the last 400 years, for all practical purposes. It was revived suddenly with American help in the 1980s. When the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan, Zia ul-Haq, the [U.S.-backed] military dictator of Pakistan, which borders on Afghanistan, saw an opportunity and launched a jihad there against godless communism. The U.S. saw a God-sent opportunity to mobilize one billion Muslims against what Reagan called the ‘Evil Empire.’
“Money started pouring in. CIA agents starting going all over the Muslim world recruiting people to fight in the great jihad. Bin Laden was one of the early prize recruits. He was not only an Arab. He was also a Saudi. He was not only a Saudi. He was also a multimillionaire, willing to put his own money into the matter. Bin Laden went around recruiting people for the jihad against communism.
“I first met him in 1986. He was recommended to me by an American official of whom I do not know whether he was or was not an agent. I was talking to him and said, ‘Who are the Arabs here who would be very interesting?’ By here I meant in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said, ‘You must meet Osama.’ I went to see Osama. There he was, rich, bringing in recruits from Algeria, from Sudan, from Egypt, just like Sheikh Abdul Rahman. This fellow was an ally. He remained an ally.
“He turns at a particular moment. In 1990, the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia with forces. Saudi Arabia is the holy place of Muslims, Mecca, and Medina. There had never been foreign troops there. In 1990, during the Gulf War, they went in, in the name of helping Saudi Arabia defeat Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden remained quiet.
“Saddam was defeated, but the American troops stayed on in the land of the Ka’aba [the most sacred site of Islam, in Mecca], foreign troops. He wrote letter after letter saying, ‘Why are you here? Get out! You came to help but you have stayed on.’ Finally he started a jihad against the other occupiers. His mission is to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia. His earlier mission was to get Russian troops out of Afghanistan.”
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Only two years ago you were calling people for all sorts (the old snide race number) for people wanting an exit…
And insisting you were dune. Had my mind changed on that too, although the run-up is a good example of the stubborness Lou was referring to.
Originally posted by @Bearsy
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
you can’t kill your killer
not easy, but it can be done. I.e. I was parachuting, and some bro on the ground shot out my parachute, what I could do is angle my descent so that I land on him + thus kill my killer.
I appreciate in the normal course of things it’s not as easy as that though. I suppose a lot of times, by the time you’ve been killed, you’ve already left it too late. Hardly the fault of PC bros tho, is it?
What if you are a suicide bomber and when you are shot dead, you fall on the trigger, blowing up your killer?
Pap, by following this narrative, you are attempting to rationalise madness. It can’t be done. Nothing justifies those acts. There is no cause and effect - this is not normal behaviour.
The strategy of pretending madness and hatred comes out of nowhere hasn’t served us well. We continue to make the same mistakes.
I disagree with your assessment, such as it is. If you’d like to address a specific point, I’m more than willing to discuss it, but I cannot treat an unqualified “no it isn’t” with any degree of seriousness.
You can’t just dismiss radical Islam as “madness”. There must be a reason people turn to it because, like you say, it is not normal. The acts of extreme violence are so out of the ordinary that it can’t be sheer coincidence that lots of people from around the world have signed up to ISIS. There is an answer or multiple answers and understanding them is just as important as killing terrorists, because whilst people may die, the thought process that leads people to these acts will remain.
Poverty and the thoughts of religion first and nation second.
There are acts of mass barbarism around the world on a pretty depressingly frequent basis. Much as I would love to find reasons why this happens, just for love of human race if nothing else, very frequently there aren’t reasons. Turning inward, as many on the left do - what have we done wrong, what could we have done differently - is fine when there’s a rational case to consider. This act, and others like it, have no rational case. Yes we need to learn better how to deal with it. But the ‘it’s out fault’ narrative is missing the point. These people are coerced into a hatred of the west, and they have a deep ingrained disgust of women (reference the note admitting responsibility). That is irrational. By trying to understand, you are humanising barbarism, and turning the barbarians into characters to have some empathy for.
The people most affected by their acts of barbarism are those in the Middle East. Do we try and rationalise that hatred too?
I find that an intolerable stance, much as I appreciate its well meaning.
I’m not suggesting that these people have been led down their path to bellendery by the actions of west. I think that different people have different reasons for turning to radical Islam and then taking the next steps into terrorism. I don’t think it’s a simple reason, although I’m not entirely sure what the reasons may be. I will go along with the idea that some are disgruntled by the west, by the dominance of the west, by the interference in their countries. But there must be more to it than that. I’m sure poverty and hopelessness play a role, though I could easily be talking out of my arse. A lack of control over their own future could lead people to become desperate and disillusioned. I don’t know. I’m sure there are wide variety of reasons why people become radicalised and that they’re not all “because of the west”. There may be a certain type of person who is more likely to fall into this way of life and I would imagine that they are poorly educated with low self esteem and haven’t really enjoyed any success in life. Again, I could be entirely wrong, I’m just trying to think of reasons - no proportioning blame. There is certainly a cultural problem amongst certain Muslim communities and I agree that sometimes their attitude to women can be awful. Some of the lowest achieving children in this country are of Bangladeshi descent - they are miles behind the high achieving Indians. Why is that? I don’t know the answer, but what I’m saying is that we, as intelligent people, should be able to try and understand human behaviour - and that isn’t the same as making excuses for it.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
There are acts of mass barbarism around the world on a pretty depressingly frequent basis. Much as I would love to find reasons why this happens, just for love of human race if nothing else, very frequently there aren’t reasons.
Spoken aloud in many a history and science department, I’m sure.
I think that’s a complete copout. Not being arsed to determine root causes don’t change what they are.
Turning inward, as many on the left do - what have we done wrong, what could we have done differently - is fine when there’s a rational case to consider. This act, and others like it, have no rational case. Yes we need to learn better how to deal with it. But the ‘it’s out fault’ narrative is missing the point. These people are coerced into a hatred of the west, and they have a deep ingrained disgust of women (reference the note admitting responsibility). That is irrational. By trying to understand, you are humanising barbarism, and turning the barbarians into characters to have some empathy for.
The “our fault” narrative is far from widespread, you really have to go to left wing newspapers, internet forums or outside of the country to see it applied with any coherence. The mainstream media is still pumping the message that took hold after the BBC had its wings clipped, so I don’t think it’s as big or as wide as you’re making out. It is encouraging to see people willing to look at our actions, and damn, do they deserve scrutiny, over the long term and be able to observe the cause and effect you claim doesn’t exist.
The people most affected by their acts of barbarism are those in the Middle East. Do we try and rationalise that hatred too?
No, and no-one is suggesting that we do that. The preferred option for me would be to deal with ISIS under the banner of a UN resolution and true coalition, then look for a longer term political settlement.
The problem of course, is that we live in a cartoonish world of current events, where the media is used to paint belligerent states as the maintainers of world peace and freedom, nations that have done jack shit comparatively as villains, and people are okay with the idea that someone just comes out hating the West, or suspectible to hating the West, for no good reason whatsoever.
I can’t see that what you’ve quoted there (I haven’t read the entire article; I may do so) backs up your case particularly well. It’s perfectly well known that US backing for (among others) the Afghani Mujahideen contributed greatly to what came afterwards - most particularly Al Qaida. The age-old ploy of siding with one’s enemy’s enemy has never worked, and it still doesn’t work now.
But to extrapolate from what you’ve posted that the US (or indeed the west) is entirely to blame for the current state of jihadism is a massive step, and one which overlooks far too many other factors. For example; had the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia once any threat from Iraq was snuffed out, do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would have been happy and content, and not remotely inclined to see the west as a decadent and godless place in need of punishment? The quote you’ve posted makes it clear that Bin Laden was a man on a mission (not that this was in any doubt anyway). His mission would have moved on to the decadent west sooner or later, no matter what happened elsewhere. And he’d have found followers. And money.
Yes, the west - and the US in particular - has contributed to the rise of jihadism. But to suggest that this is the sole factor is just wrong.
That’s a fine post, fat boy.
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
I can’t see that what you’ve quoted there (I haven’t read the entire article; I may do so) backs up your case particularly well. It’s perfectly well known that US backing for (among others) the Afghani Mujahideen contributed greatly to what came afterwards - most particularly Al Qaida. The age-old ploy of siding with one’s enemy’s enemy has never worked, and it still doesn’t work now.
But to extrapolate from what you’ve posted that the US (or indeed the west) is entirely to blame for the current state of jihadism is a massive step, and one which overlooks far too many other factors. For example; had the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia once any threat from Iraq was snuffed out, do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would have been happy and content, and not remotely inclined to see the west as a decadent and godless place in need of punishment? The quote you’ve posted makes it clear that Bin Laden was a man on a mission (not that this was in any doubt anyway). His mission would have moved on to the decadent west sooner or later, no matter what happened elsewhere. And he’d have found followers. And money.
Yes, the west - and the US in particular - has contributed to the rise of jihadism. But to suggest that this is the sole factor is just wrong.
Again, I don’t think many people are making the charge that it is all the West’s fault. No-one who decides to kill an innocent gets to blame it on the West; they’ve clearly decided to do something that most would not consider doing, and it isn’t a necessarily automatic response to go killing Westerners, even if family members have been killed. People make individual choices.
That said, those choices are going to be hugely influenced by things that have happened to them, and their ability to deal with them, and we’ve had a lot to do with those choices. The absolute worst thing is that many think that despite everything, we’re generally in the right, and that is simply not true.
Posting the end of that article.
The pundits in the West blaming Islam for the rise of extremism are projecting their own countries’ crimes onto the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
The kinds of people who blame Islam and Muslims for the spread of extremism are the kinds of people who have utmost faith in Western empire. Even if they admit that it “sometimes” engages in problematic behavior, they, deep-down, believe Western empire to be fundamentally rooted in good will, in humanitarianism, in progress, in the proselytizing of civilization.
This is the same logic that justified genocidal European colonialism, Western expansionism and Manifest Destiny, and the White Man’s Burden. And it is this same logic that promotes militarist policies and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee bigotries in response to Islamist militants’ attacks — only serving to further fuel the fire of extremism.
These same pundits, the ones who blame Islam for the rise of ISIS and who have utmost faith in the putative good will of Western empire, would have wholeheartedly supported Osama bin Laden in the 1980s; these same pundits would have dubbed the father of al-Qaida a “freedom fighter” in his heroic battle against the evil Soviet Union.
In the aforementioned speech, Ahmad articulated five kinds of terrorism. He lamented, however, that of these types, the focus in the media and the political system is almost always on just one: “political terror of the private group, oppositional terror” — which he points out is “the least important in terms of cost to human lives and human property.” “The highest cost is state terror,” Ahmad explained. He roughly estimated that the ratio of people killed by state terror versus those killed by individual acts of terror is, conservatively, 100,000 to one.
If we truly want to end the abominable acts of violence perpetrated by extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida, we should take to heart the simple yet profound counsel of Noam Chomsky, another modern-day Cassandra: “Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it.”
You have to be honest and confront it, are Hindu and Sikh communities more open to change and progression than people of the Muslim faith? Possibly, they still have arranged marriages and dowry but they value a Western education far more yes and they also are far further ahead with womens rights, far from perfect but leap years ahead of Islam, but this is from a Western perspective quite obviously.
I believe the equality of all regardless of colour, sexual orientation and sex over a fucking book which is a load of bollocks anyday, and a Western liberal upbringing has given me that right to say so. I find it repugnant in the 21st century we can not mention it for fear of offence, fuck that the pc brigade should hang their heads in shame.
Sorry Fowllyd; didn’t address your point on what Osama bin Laden would have done had the US not barrelled into Saudi Arabia. It’s impossible to say, but again, he was greatly facilitated by the US. Fair enough, he’s was a multimillionaire, but those sums disappear quickly when military gear is involved. The game changer was the stinger missile, allowing the freedom fighters to knock Soviet gunships out of the sky, but the money meant he could prosecute his campaign indefinitely. If we want to play hypotheticals, we could just as easily have him dead on the end of a missile on an Afghan mountain.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, saw the conflict as an opportunity to give the Soviets their own Vietnam. In his mind, there’s no doubt that he helped to create Al Qaeda. He just thinks it was worth it, is all.
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski : Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?