Liverpool terror attack

[Mr Kobayashi]

Thanks, though in light of you answer, the question about why he was still here after 7 years still remains in my mind.

Because it is very difficult to deport people, particularly if they are from a country still embroiled in civil war.

The end of immigration appeals entitlement isn't the end of all legal appeals, there is still the option to appeal on human rights grounds. This can include medical issues that may not be treatable in the healthcare systems in their home country.

He has been sectioned before, could have formed part of a HR action if he has a serious and diagnosed mental health disorder.

 

[metalblue]

Our views are opposed but we are speaking and that is how commonality is found. There is enough evidence out there that our foreign policy is, at times, inflammatory but we also hear of terrorist acts from multiple groups and lone wolves all over the globe and the chance of stopping all attacks is next to zero.

I doubt our views are all that opposed. I don’t disagree that our foreign policies might well be cause and effect. But we need to hear their demands and then decide, we can’t just guess as a way of foreign policy (well except for Boris as he does seem to largely make stuff up as he goes along).

 

[Blue Mist]

You've reminded me of a very good answer I once heard against the charge that western foreign policy is to blame for, or at least invites, Islamic terrorism.

Not long after the U.S. had become an independent nation, it set out to build its naval trade capacity. It wasn't long before American sailors were being killed or kidnapped in the Mediterranean by Barbary pirates. In response, a U.S. representative - I think it was Jefferson, but can't remember for certain - requested to meet with an ambassador from Tripoli in London to talk about it.

At the meeting he asked the Tripoli rep why this was happening. The U.S. was a new nation, it hadn't been involved in the Crusades, and it didn't even yet have a 'foreign policy'. The answer from the Tripoli man was simply "Because you are infidels, and the Quran compels us do to this".

Islamic fundamentalism, or indeed any form of religious-based terrorism, doesn't nor ever has needed western foreign policy (no matter how destructive it has been) as an excuse to do shitty things to people.

I am not an expert in Islam but surely Bhuddists are also infidels in that they to do not believe in Mohammed.
So why are they not subjected to attacks?
My belief is it is simply political, those in power use Islam to ensure they remain in power.

 

[dickie davies]

That does not explain why we are targeted rather than the Burmese. It is my belief that we are targeted due to politics rather than any religious ideology.

Or why a bomber would blow themselves and tens of other Muslims up at a busy market in their own country

 

[hello]

You've reminded me of a very good answer I once heard against the charge that western foreign policy is to blame for, or at least invites, Islamic terrorism.

Not long after the U.S. had become an independent nation, it set out to build its naval trade capacity. It wasn't long before American sailors were being killed or kidnapped in the Mediterranean by Barbary pirates. In response, a U.S. representative - I think it was Jefferson, but can't remember for certain - requested to meet with an ambassador from Tripoli in London to talk about it.

At the meeting he asked the Tripoli rep why this was happening. The U.S. was a new nation, it hadn't been involved in the Crusades, and it didn't even yet have a 'foreign policy'. The answer from the Tripoli man was simply "Because you are infidels, and the Quran compels us do to this".

Islamic fundamentalism, or indeed any form of religious-based terrorism, doesn't nor ever has needed western foreign policy (no matter how destructive it has been) as an excuse to do shitty things to people.

Exactly all non believers are infidels deserving death or servitude to believers.

 

[Blue Mist]

If by “targeted” you mean singled out for condemnation, they most certainly are targeted. The very fact that you and I both know that that is going on is in itself proof.
If on the other hand you expect western or NATO forces to do anything about those utterly reprehensible crimes, or even the governments they represent to riposte with sanctions, well of course they don't give a damn, basically. Western strategic and economic interests are not threatened by anything that's happening to either the Uyghurs in Xinjiang or the Muslims in Myanmar. And that, precisely, is the point.

I definitely do not want western governments to intervene in Burma or China. I asked why Islamic terrorists do not target these countries as they are killing innocent believers in Islam, the same excuse used to justify attacks on the west.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I definitely do not want western governments to intervene in Burma or China. I asked why Islamic terrorists do not target these countries as they are killing innocent believers in Islam, the same excuse used to justify attacks on the west.

Maybe because China and Burma would exact a pretty severe retribution that the west won't, otherwise I don't know.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Because it is very difficult to deport people, particularly if they are from a country still embroiled in civil war.

The end of immigration appeals entitlement isn't the end of all legal appeals, there is still the option to appeal on human rights grounds. This can include medical issues that may not be treatable in the healthcare systems in their home country.

He has been sectioned before, could have formed part of a HR action if he has a serious and diagnosed mental health disorder.

Thanks, whilst I find your reply plausible I don't fully understand it... I think.

If the reason for delay was as you suggest it COULD be (embroiled in civil war) then would that not be a case to allow the application? I appreciate we don't have all the facts but the fact that he was denied 7 years ago just seems wrong.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You've reminded me of a very good answer I once heard against the charge that western foreign policy is to blame for, or at least invites, Islamic terrorism.

Not long after the U.S. had become an independent nation, it set out to build its naval trade capacity. It wasn't long before American sailors were being killed or kidnapped in the Mediterranean by Barbary pirates. In response, a U.S. representative - I think it was Jefferson, but can't remember for certain - requested to meet with an ambassador from Tripoli in London to talk about it.

At the meeting he asked the Tripoli rep why this was happening. The U.S. was a new nation, it hadn't been involved in the Crusades, and it didn't even yet have a 'foreign policy'. The answer from the Tripoli man was simply "Because you are infidels, and the Quran compels us do to this".

Islamic fundamentalism, or indeed any form of religious-based terrorism, doesn't nor ever has needed western foreign policy (no matter how destructive it has been) as an excuse to do shitty things to people.

Christopher Hitchens? ;)

Maybe because pirates would rob anyone who was vulnerable and isn’t offering them coin or protection to rob someone else.

Infidels is a convenient excuse to justify wars and slave trades, but it's not unique, the white man's burden i.e. Christian's "civilising" Africans through slavery is the same thing.

 

[Scholesthetoes]

Selling weapons to the Saudis will be something we’ll look back on in future as a total disgrace. What’s happening in Yemen is criminal.

Especially when Newcastle United beat Man City in the 2030 Champions League final.