Woolwich and British Actions in the Islamic World

Says you in hindsight.

You don't go to war knowing the exact casualty rates do you? Completely absurd your argument is.

Islamists aren't some homogenous mass, there are distinct groups with distinct ideologies. What some want isn't necessarily what others want.

Iraq, Libya and Egypt had secular regimes that prevented expansion of islamism. Now, you have Syria where al-Nusra is supported by the West and Assad who is a secular-arab nationalists is being overthworn.

In 1980, there was Afganistan. The west supported al-Qaida while the Soivet supported the Afgan communist government

As you see, Michael Adebolayo (or whatever his surname is) should in fact be happy for Western Intervention in the Arab world.

Islamic terrorism is in the main caused by western intervention in Foreign lands, to ignore this fact is a simple abomination.

This attack was designed to create religious division in our country, the best response we can take is to bring our troops home immediately before it's too late.

This is a highly dubious suggestion. You may be correct in the case of Egypt, but Egypt was generally friendly to the West. The US accepted Mubarak's fall when it was clear that his rule was no longer tenable, it did not engineer or even welcome his fall.

Gaddafi's Libya was a well known promoter of international terrorism who caused the bombing of an American aircraft over British airspace, supported the Irish Republican Army, promoted a civil war in Chad, supported Islamic extremists in the Middle East and Africa (even more so than Saudi Arabia), and established the ‘Islamic Legion‘ (which eventually became the Janjaweed) as an international paramilitary force with an ideology blending Islamism and Arab-supremacist, anti-black racism, and which helped to lay the groundwork for the genocide in Darfur. Apologists for Gadaffi who loudly accuse the West, the KSA or Qatar of supporting terrorism in Syria should bear all this in mind. His regime was responsible for decades of warfare, terror and genocide in Africa, in most cases against fellow Muslims. Despite being 'secular', Gadaffi confiscated all Jewish property in the country and drove out the few Jews who remained, and never outlawed polygamy despite being in power for over 40 years.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was argubly secular (even that is debatable though), but was also a genocidal dictatorship who committed genocide against the Kurdish population of Northern Iraq, was a known supporter of Islamic extremism and terrorism in the Levant and was a major source of regional instability which started two wars, one of which cost more lives than the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq put together. Nothing that the Muslim Brotherhood or even Saudi Arabia has done is even remotely comparable. Even before Saddam was deposed, Iraq was a massively unstable country and was on the verge of civil war. Many of Iraq's post 2003 problems can be traced back to his rule, of imposing minority rule over the majority.

These dictatorships, through preventing the emergence of healthy political pluralism and through opportunistic collaboration with Islamism, acted as the incubators of the very Islamist movements they claimed to keep in check. It is pluralism – more so than democracy – that is ultimately the cure for the evil represented by Islamism.

Likewise, Tito did not 'keep the factions in check' in Yugoslavia. His authoritarian political style prevented the emergence of a healthy democratic polity and to an authoritarian and intolerent political culture, fit for nationalist demigogues like Karadzic, Milosevic and Tudjman (to a lesser extent, I'm not equating Tudjman with Milosevic), to take power when communism collapsed.

The West did not support 'Al-Qaeda' (which did not even exist then). It supported the native Afghan Mujahadeen against the Soviets. The Taliban were largely supported and funded as a proxy force by Pakistan after the Soviets had left. However, Bill Clinton did collude with the Taliban as a way of trying to curb Iranian influence, a stupid move the consequences of which are well known.

I think he's referring to Iraq and whatever, but yes, he is argubly being hypocritical. His fellow African Muslims are literally subjected to genocide by the regime in Khartoum, yet he says not a word about that, and is more concerned with Western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually anti-black racism was made by the islamists in the Libyan civil war because they mainstream islam consider the Tuareg people as heretics since they have a lot of pre-islamic influence in their culture. The (black) Tuareg people were loyal to Gadafi during the civil war.

i will agree that he had faults because he promoted terrorism in neighbour countries and other part of the world (but also that was the West also doing; they were also doing that to him) but in general his rule was positive because all citizens had free education, health and so on. That was all subsided by oil. There was many immigrants working there because the land was rich (including many from Cro) and in compare to SA where the immigrants were second class citizens.

Gadafi was indeed traditional when it came to religion but he was not certanly a radical islamist. He promoted state intervention in economy. That all was Jamahyria (socialism adapted to Arabs need and culture)

Yes, he might be cruel toward the Kurds but they are also not innocent. All nations where they live have problems with them due to separatism (Turkey for example). The PKK comiteed some atrocities in Turkey and certianly they were not innocent in Iraq.

Fact is that Sadam never had weapons of mass destructions yet the Western media spread such proganda and therefore they are in some cases also not different than Sadam.

They all should go tactical toward the population, but also not all people turned to islamists. It could have a different end (if for example Gadafis son got in power who was tolerant and plural). Libya should not have to be attack.

In such secular regimes there is always a chance that it turn into a democracy by educating the people and enrouraging plurality. In state like Qatar, Sa and other that is not impossible because the system is infected by religion.

In one hand Milošević came to power in 1986 when the other were anonym people. It is very quiestionable if Yugoslavia would broke out if there was not him and his annual meeting thorugh former Yugoslavia.

True that al-qaida did not exist at that time but bin Laden and others started their carrer in Afganistan.

Islamic terrorism is in the main caused by western intervention in Foreign lands, to ignore this fact is a simple abomination. When will British people finally wake up and realise our soldiers are not heroes but are as equally murderers as the men who committed yesterdays acts - there is no justification for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. The video below has been described to as disgraceful by the video's uploaders - I disagree it is one of the more honest, rational and well-balanced interviews given in the last few days.

We as a nation need to look at ourselves and stop acting like the policemen of the muslim world, before the muslim world starts acting like the criminal in our country. This attack was designed to create religious division in our country, the best response we can take is to bring our troops home immediately before it's too late. Why are we condemners of the beheading of a man in Britain or the bombing of a marathon in Boston but are on the side of islamic extremists in Syria? Because our governments are hypocritical and interfering.

The man who killed the soldier wanted to start a civil war in Britain. Perhaps after ten years of war - the muslim world is sick to death of a western war and foreign policy tearing their region apart.

[video="youtube;DaN7quv48jk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DaN7quv48jk[/video]


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback