My point (though based off a couple of articles that make a slightly different point) is that even the best foreign policy isn't going to work 100% of the time without making enemies. That doesn't necessarily mean our foreign policy doesn't need some adjustment but a lot of people seem to want to jump fully to an almost isolationist soft alternative in response to the times when it has resulted in an impact felt at home.
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
My point (though based off a couple of articles that make a slightly different point) is that even the best foreign policy isn't going to work 100% of the time without making enemies. That doesn't necessarily mean our foreign policy doesn't need some adjustment but a lot of people seem to want to jump fully to an almost isolationist soft alternative in response to the times when it has resulted in an impact felt at home.
So why has France, who did not take part in Iraq, been so badly affected by Islamic terrorism? Why has Poland, who did take part, not experienced any Islamic terror attacks on its soil? The issue isn't about any western country's foreign policy, it's more about the ideology of Islamic jihad.
Wouldn't it be 'stirring the hornet's nest' if the UN got involved in Africa?
See my post immediately above. I'm aware of the point you are making but I don't think it is as black and white as your/some people's position on it in a slightly different way to what you mean (I didn't really make my original post specifically in response to any of your posts).
I doubt she would last long anyway, she would eventually be replaced by someone more competent. Like Clive Lewis
So you come from the emotive Trumpesq position because clearly by interpol figures if you cared about the issues of European terror, you would be considering the 95% issue of ethno nationalist terror first, No?
Did the article compare foreign military intervention against successful terrorist attacks, or against terrorist activity (including failed attacks)?
It would seem curious if there truly is no link, given the security services themselves have said there is a link.
I get nearly all of my news and updates via written form so I think I'm only just starting to realise how mortally terrified of public debate Theresa May seems to be. To let Amber Rudd stand in for her is very telling. There's no good reason I can see other than fear of public cross-examination. After all, I'm pretty sure the BBC would have done their best to accommodate the PMs schedule.
As per my other posts the article (and the BBC article based on it) is a disingenuous use of the figures - my post was in response to the kind of attitudes that seem to be emerging of jumping entirely to a different sort of foreign policy (usually Corbynesque always the soft option) due to some failings of our foreign policy rather than looking at it as a whole and maybe making some modifications.
TM increasingly seems to be about the greater glory of TM and her agenda and more and more falling apart when she has to do real politics and not ramming through what she wants LOL.
I'll say it again I honestly believe anyone voting Tory or Labour this election is bat **** crazy.
Yet the 7/7 bombings weren't attributed to ISIS - if ISIS didn't exist then some other group would get to claim responsibility. Sure Iraq can act as a catalyst for more attacks on the West but it isn't the underlying cause - Islamist ideology is. 9/11 took place before the invasion of Iraq as did the US embassy bombings etc..
ISIS has seized significant ground and arisen to prominence after we withdrew troops and the relative lack of action over Syria has allowed it to flourish there too - not intervening when we had the chance hasn't exactly proven to be a good call so far - the country is currently a complete cluster **** and ISIS is only starting to get pushed back directly as a result of foreign intervention and foreign backed forces.
Disingenuous post of the decade,
Apparently ISIS has flourished in Iraq due to our "not intervention" that has presumably "not killed hundreds of thousands"?
Virtually everyone who suggested that unilateral intervention in Iraq was a bad plan specifically suggested it would create an environment rich for recruiting more people to a radical islamist/terror agenda, an issue that wasn't occurring in the region at the time. Our "not" intervention has done exactly that and the type of leaders who supported the wrong unilateral move, are now the ones blaming the issue, on the very people who pointed out the total lack of thinking behind the plan!
That was in reference to Syria... our limited intervention and earlier non-intervention haven't exactly worked out well so far - in fact ISIS has only ended up receiving setbacks as a result of intervention by the West... your simplistic view doesn't quite stack up there.
From the people who's actions brought ISIS into being, the plan for solving Syria, and the threat that, the world is a dangerous place these days.
First and foremost, I care about stopping Islamic terror in the UK because that is the biggest problem facing the UK today.
you can only minimize it, not stop it completely and compared to most countries we have not had the number of attacks that they have had.
Is it?
It could be argued that, as horrific as terror attacks are for those caught up in them, things like Brexit, education, the NHS and social care are all problems that will affect more of the UK population.
Nice to see Diane Abbot clarifying her views on the IRA from the 1980s with Marr, she has moved on. She hasn't said how she has moved on and she most certainly didn't say she regretted her remarks, but her views have changed just like her afro...
Labour really need to stop her getting in front of the television!
Labour really need to stop her getting in front of the television!
Countries like Japan, Poland and Hungary don't have any problems with Islamic terror. We need to understand why and act accordingly.
Personally I'd put efforts to stop the slaughter of our nation's children as more important than those things.
Governments want the population in a state of panic/fear, that way they are easier to manipulate. Look at post 9/11, Bush waged war on Iraq for totally dubious reasons and got largely unchallenged because people were still reeling from 9/11.
Last edited:
They've got fewer muslims.. likewise France has more muslims and more problems with terror attacks. As much as people can blame foreign policy they could also blame immigration. The real reason is simply Islamist ideology but sure increased immigration from muslim countries and intervention in muslim countries can both act as catalysts.
Are you in a constant state of panic and fear? I know I'm not, what makes me special that I am immune to the government propaganda?
- Status