How about disaster capitalism, petrodollar recycling, and supplying weapons to "rebels" did terrorism?
Or simply: Neocolonialism did terrorism.
Today's report by a Parliamentary committee called for everyone from the government to the press to combat terrorism by creating "counter-narratives" to those used by ISIS to justify its actions. It also argued that it was the responsibility of the press and social media sites to facilitate the creation of these “counter- …
"decades of reckless immigration policies enabled this.
don't count on immigration extremists in the parliament to point the finger at themselves."
How have you even come to this conclusion?
Could it possibly be that the images we have seen on our TV's since 2001, the ones where the US and the UK roll in to Afghanistan and Iraq, blowing the place up as they go, promising it'll be sorted by Christmas have done more to turn minds away from society and in to the arms of those cowards who would rather someone's child get some C4 and blow themselves up? It's no secret that the rates of terrorism, the number of attacks have increased dramatically since the war in Afghanistan?
And what about the continual bombings in Iraq? The bomings in Pakistan? The bombings in Turkey? All these bombings coming from ISIS (or insert other terrorist organisation here), funded in part by the idea that the US, UK, EU could help topple Assad in Syria by giving the "rebels" guns and ammunition? Where's that gone? To ISIS, like those who opposed that action said would happen. And what happened there? Oh look, 2/3 years on Assad is still there, the rebels are still fighting, ISIS still blowing up mosques, temples, hospitals, women, children, men etc. Oh it's OK we'll drop bombs from the sky, that'll solve the issue. What's that? ISIS selling oil to Turkish oil companies that Ergodan's sons control? And Turkey being a member of NATO? Oh, I'm sorry that must be a conspiracy, my mistake.
And what about the state of Iraq and Afghanistan? The heroin problem Afghanistan has exploded, resulting in their youth succumbing to that shit and not rebuilding the country they were born in to and had no say in its future.
But no, it's obviously the woman on the beach in France wearing a burkini, the number of muslims from lots of different countries, coming to the UK or to the US causing all of this hell. It's obviously all those curry houses you frequent after a long night on the beer funding these terrorists. It couldn't possibly be a society that accuses or judges a muslim that lives in the society of being a terrorist just for wearing some cloth while walking in to their place of worship that is the problem?
Just strikes me that the same old crap has been thrown at the Irish for the last 30 years. The story's the same, just the colour of the skin and theatre is different.
Every day, something like this gets posted on to The Reg, and every day some dick head who's gotten bored of wanking off to Katie Hopkin's vile rhetoric posted proudly on the Daily Mail have to come on here and spout their vitriol against a group of people they know feck all about and plenty of it.
Our home-grown terrorists are often marginalised (and none too bright) people who have early exposure to street violence and feel the need to belong to a group and be important. Any appeal would work, and the appeal du jour is to an extreme fringe of a religion. Same sort of thing in the USA, where it can be Christianity or some local woowoo.
Terrorism feeds on powerlessness, oppression, humiliation (hi there, colonialism) and victimisation. It is a lashing back, using the language and tools of the oppressor.
That the western powers don't get that supporting thugs such as Assad (and let's look at Iran and Iraq an Egypt and even Libya, all in their time) leads pretty much directly to armed counter-punches makes me throw up my hands in despair. We are not innocent victims. It's like a big bully kicking the little kid and then, when the little kid throws a rock, righteously pointing to the bloody bump on the head and saying 'you saw it: an unprovoked attack'.
I appreciate many of the arguments on this thread. But the chaps who attempted to ram a vehicle into Glasgow airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack) were not uneducated. Stupid and incompetent but not uneducated. No simplistic explanation is adequate.
<quote>
"We also recommend that they do not identify terrorists as Muslims.."
Oh, for crying out loud! Don't start *that* nonsense again. That's what they bloody well idenfify *themselves* as, you morons.
<unquote>
Shall we try changing a couple of words and see if you still agree?
"We also recommend that they do not identify the KKK as Christians.."
Oh, for crying out loud! Don't start *that* nonsense again. That's what they bloody well idenfify *themselves* as, you morons.
As our schools have shifted towards a for-profit American style system, they've started to resemble the for-profit prison system.
Except you get MORE time for good behaviour, not less. People who are too smart to be indoctrinated by 16 need more time in the system, plus a bunch of student debt to bind them.
There are many counter arguments to radicalisation, quite a few of which are to be found within the religious texts such "radicals" claim to follow so...religiously.
Those who wish to be "radicalised" will simply ignore any new counter arguments in the same way that they ignore those that are already present - they do not wish to be aware of anything which opposes their viewpoint and will actively avoid it. (Just like governments and especially government "think tanks" to be honest).
Just another waste of time and taxpayers resources.
"As our schools have shifted towards a for-profit American style system, they've started to resemble the for-profit prison system.
Except you get MORE time for good behaviour, not less. People who are too smart to be indoctrinated by 16 need more time in the system, plus a bunch of student debt to bind them."
You sir, are correct in every way. I see the school system of today and despair.
You can't generally stop people believing something by trying to argue against or disproving their beliefs - they will only double-down against your attacks. What you need to do is give them something else to believe in, something better.
Daesh profess to offer meaning and glory - a supposed nation of brothers, fighting for a homeland, and against the injustices exacted on their faith. What future does the UK try to offer these youths instead? Discrimination, prejudice, joblessness, and poverty?
"Daesh profess to offer meaning and glory - a supposed nation of brothers, fighting for a homeland, and against the injustices exacted on their faith. What future does the UK try to offer these youths instead? Discrimination, prejudice, joblessness, and poverty?"
I am not convinced that being scattered in pieces on a battlefield either from wearing a bomb or just being hit by one is an advert for a better life. And of course this is against the background of people insisting here is a place of discrimination, prejudice, joblessness, and poverty. If it was true then in what way does Daesh change that as they seem to be failing on each account? But it isnt true, instead we have it easy. We have minimum wage and typically someone aint gonna kill you for your beliefs or race.
The hopelessness I hear is very odd, it is almost like people are dreaming of a country that is failing, almost a goal to aim for. Things can always be better and yet we seem to be doing better than the Eurozone and performing well in the world at large.
There was an interesting piece I read the other day (dont know how accurate) about the lack of religion in a lot of the people going over there. And we read plenty of horror stories especially the one of girls going over then realising they cannot escape.
I dont know if the facts cannot displace the romantic idea's of the terrorists new world or if they feel so alienated in a multicultural country. But I cant imagine the constant talking down of this country helps any. I dont advocate painting a rosier than real picture but a darker than real one is worse.
"I am not convinced that being scattered in pieces on a battlefield either from wearing a bomb or just being hit by one is an advert for a better life."
But it is an enticing escape for a lot of people suffering hopelessness, despair, and violence, especially since they're told it's a sure ticket to Paradise.
It's not just them either. World Wars 1 and 2 had chaplains on the battle fields exhorting the troops to lay down their lives for God and Country™, and God would welcome them to Heaven with open arms.
I think there *is* something about the risk of being blown up that is attractive to some /many young people. Life in the UK (and possibly other countries) is very safe and ordered, with few ways to prove oneself against extremes (let us say "show courage" as a shorthand term). There are no rites of passage, nothing that shows progression from childhood to adulthood - and the concept of "adult" is fairly dull too - the best many can hope for is meaningless work, little chance of their own home with the consequent effect on family choices etc. Even the military is increasingly safe in terms of Health amdand Safety, yet less safe as a career, and heroism is undervalued.
Running off to war has been a way young people have tried to find meaning for centuries (I see the current crop of ISIS candidates as being no different from the British who went to the Spanish Civil War, or the Americans that joined the Second World War before their government did). It is this underlying lack of meaning in modern Western culturethat needs to be addressed if any significant change is to be achieved.
> This is necessary because of “young people’s lack of ability or awareness of the need to critically challenge their beliefs” according to the committee
I was fortunate enough to do one year of primary school in a third world country which at the time was ruled by a violent dictatorship.
We were taught, and examined on, the importance of critical thinking--we had to comment on the same news event as related by two different sources with different biases. We were also taught that the government they had a the time was not legitimate according to the country's constitution, and we were taught how the constitutional form of government, a democracy, worked. This was at a regular public school, and the teachers were not heroes, they just followed the official curriculum.
Needless to say, I was very surprised upon my return to Europe to find that none of my peers had received any of this knowledge.
This to say that critical thinking is not an innate ability: it can and should be taught. If dictators can do it, why not supposedly representative governments?
There has been a gradual decline due to increasingly dumbed-down education, the rot starting for real from around 1972 according to my dear departed teacher aunt. This results in people who cannot do almost any critical thinking at all, and the speed of decline is shocking. Around 2006/7 or so a friend of mine was saying it was difficult to get people to do research work or write articles with because they could not critically analyse ideas in their head anymore. He did test them a little bit but understood pretty quickly what the problem was. No idea if he considered it worth it to spend the time to retrain their brains ....
The press shouldn't report any of the West's disgraceful actions in the middle east and they shouldn't report that extremist Muslims represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK. They should just report whatever the Ministry of Truth tells them to.
What could possibly go wrong here?
extremist Muslims represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK.
30 to 40 years ago, you could have said "extremist Irish Catholics represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK."
I wonder if you would have been one to encourage the view that anyone Irish or a Catholic was therefore likely to be a terrorist?
Terrorists often co-opt a religious or political ideal to justify their acts, but it doesn't mean that they represent the views of normal followers of that religion or ideal.
What could possibly go wrong here?
What indeed.
'30 to 40 years ago, you could have said "extremist Irish Catholics represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK."'
And I would have. They seemed to have gone a bit quiet of late, so the most likely source of deadly terrorist behaviour in the UK is fundamentalist reading of religion, esp. the Qu'ran, at this exact time. Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll discuss the rise of extreme nationalism as non-English nationals start to become the dominant population in schools and some people take that as a call to arms to get rid of 'the other'.
Now what you make of these facts is up to you. Some might take a Donald Trump attitude and try to ban everyone who's slightly different from the country, and some might take a SJW attitude and try to jail anyone who thinks diversity might have gone too far. Personally I don't care, as long as some form of liberal justice system is in place I couldn't care less who I share this crappy island with.
Sadly our government seem intent on punishing those who criticise multiculturalism while persecuting Muslims and Afro-Carribeans. Go figure.
> represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK
Not the most likely. I do not have the report handy but if you can be bothered to look it up, it's publicly available. Every year Europol do a report on terrorism in the EU, where you could¹ see that the vast majority of terrorist activity relates to separatist issues. Until last year (2015), so-called religiously inspired extremism was almost, or completely, depending on the year, off the radar. It has, as of this year, however, caused a disproportionate number of casualties and completely dominated the media, to the point that public opinion is generally unaware of any other type of terrorism within the EU, as you so well illustrate.
So, to answer part of your question: no, the media probably should not report that religiously inspired extremist people represent the most likely source of terrorist activity in the UK. For two reasons: one is that we do not know that, given that no contrastable figures are publicly available for the UK, and two that making inferences from the situation in the rest of Europe, that does not appear to be the case. I could add a third reason, which is that the way you phrased it suggests that an entire social group has revolted, when that is patently not the case, but that's a bit of a nitpick.
¹ I say "could" because the UK numbers, typically the highest in the EU, are not broken down by category. Very curious that, and makes it very hard to cross-check those numbers.
Many have departed this world.
360,000 foreign nationals (terrorist & mercs) have fought in Syria over the last few years, 95,000 of those were killed. And seems the rate is increasing, it is not a good career.
Over 30,000 foreigners' bodies are waiting to be claimed in morgues in Syria, according to the head of the Coroner's Office. Presumably the ones using suicide belts or driving VBIEDs didn't leave anything behind big enough to put in a body bag.
...called for everyone from the government to the press to combat terrorism by creating "counter-narratives"
and that there is the problem, the counter narratives they use fail, because "Islam means peace" just is not true, it means "submit" or "submission". ISIS do follow a strict interpretation of scripture, so are the real orthodox followers of islam, what we call good Muslims (integrate well, are part of the wider community) are infact non-observant, like many others of us of other faiths are non-observant.
poor Muslim kids get a very mixed message from Sunday school saying one thing, non-Muslim authorities saying another, which is then easily proven wrong by the bad guys, "look in your Koran, these infidels lied to you".
***** poor Muslim kids get a very mixed message from Sunday school saying one thing, non-Muslim authorities saying another, which is then easily proven wrong by the bad guys, "look in your Koran, these infidels lied to you". *****
I imagine that Muslim kids would get a mixed message from their Sunday Schools, but that what were the parents thinking when they signed them up to learn about Christianity?
"This is necessary because of “young people’s lack of ability or awareness of the need to critically challenge their beliefs”"
It's fairly well established that young people are much better at challenging established beliefs than old people. This is why we have such tropes as the young rebel without a cause, the old being stuck in their ways, and scientific advances only happening once the older generation of scientists have died off. Obviously these are generalisations and there are plenty of exceptions all around, but the idea that it's specifically young people who have a problem with challenging their own beliefs can't possibly have come from anyone with the slightest connection to the real world.
The young cannot critically challenge their beliefs, in part because they lack the skills but also because they lack their own beliefs. Most have their beliefs told to them, by groups targeting them as young and impressionable, and of course the culture they are in. Today that culture is not giving them the tools to decide for themselves. They are not being taught to overcome the pack mentality and group think that comes naturally to people trying to fit in and find their place.
It is fairly well established that the young are very poor at challenging established beliefs, which is why so many target them with propaganda. The seeds planted in the youth are the most difficult to uproot and in systems where critical thinking is rejected some suggest those seeds can never be uprooted.
For most once they have been told their beliefs, and they accept them, it becomes difficult if not impossible for them to question them critically regardless of how wrong or damaging those beliefs are. For them anyone not agreeing are simply not living in the real world and should be rejected, or worst depending on that their beliefs are.