Poland has a similar foreign policy to France and Britain, yet...

No I'm saying don;t be an apologist for skinheads and petty xenophobia. 4 muslims out of the countless thousands in France shot up people. The rest did not. Most have never fired a gun or committed a violent crime.

If we're going to inflate an act of violence as representing a mortal threat to the west, we might as well just drone-strike ourselves because 4 fundamentalists versus the uncounted violent crimes committed by people not in the name of Islam far outweigh that.


I couldn;t care less for Islam, I DO however care about not being a tool. Stay classy.

Most are indeed law abiding; we can keep saying this till we are blue in the face... but the debate still has to be had (it cannot be shut down anymore).

Also the second part is unfortunately contentious, support for ISIS is worrying high - 1 in 7 of all youth in this country the last poll found.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/10/31/shock-poll-one-in-seven-young-britons-sympathises-with-isis/

This article is interesting. It would indeed be alarming if 1/7 young people supported IS, but it is quite unbelievable. Support for other muslim extremists (e.g. Anjem Chourdary) remains satisfyingly low and I don't think that 1/7 young people in Britain are muslim.

However, they may be a lot of young muslims who agree with IS, but do not openly support them as they would risk their freedom, especially at a time when the govt is so up tight on the issue.

Unbelievable why, because it is so unpleasant?

No. As I said, because support for radicalism at home is very low. If it is true, I think we need to way more to tackle this issue right now.

I don't know what that claim is based on...

I've given a reputable poll which was reported in all the mainstream press.

I'd just like to point out that our foreign policy should not be dictated by Islamists. If they fight back, we shouldn't cower away, we should defeat them.

In other words, I'm sceptical of two claims. I'm sceptical that Islamists attack the US, UK and France for their foreign interventions (rather than their kuffar), and furthermore I'm sceptical that even if this were the case, it should have any bearing on our foreign policy, any more than the German plan to invade Britain should have dictated British policy against Germany.

Remember that the jihad operates internationally and its targets are innocent civilians everywhere. It may have hit the headlines that France suffered this awful attack, and yes, it is more significant when it occurs in the free world, but who mourns for the tens to hundreds of innocents killed every day in parts of Africa and South Asia by the many jihadist groups operating there? It might seem tempting to some in the West to withdraw from all conflicts and let the barbarians "kill each other" so-to-speak, but this depraved attitude is really a call for surrender. It is saying "let the innocents be killed, then we can say we played no part in their deaths". Tempting? Maybe. Moral? Certainly not.

How about this?

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Anjem_Choudary

I'd just like to point out that our foreign policy should not be dictated by Islamists. If they fight back, we shouldn't cower away, we should defeat them.

In other words, I'm sceptical of two claims. I'm sceptical that Islamists attack the US, UK and France for their foreign interventions (rather than their kuffar), and furthermore I'm sceptical that even if this were the case, it should have any bearing on our foreign policy, any more than the German plan to invade Britain should have dictated British policy against Germany.

Remember that the jihad operates internationally and its targets are innocent civilians everywhere. It may have hit the headlines that France suffered this awful attack, and yes, it is more significant when it occurs in the free world, but who mourns for the tens to hundreds of innocents killed every day in parts of Africa and South Asia by the many jihadist groups operating there? It might seem tempting to some in the West to withdraw from all conflicts and let the barbarians "kill each other" so-to-speak, but this depraved attitude is really a call for surrender. It is saying "let the innocents be killed, then we can say we played no part in their deaths". Tempting? Maybe. Moral? Certainly not.

I don't want to sound mean, but almost all of these "interventions" have so far only worsened the situations in these regions. What's more, there is a startling disproportion between American, British and French interventions in regions rich in resources to those that have nothing to offer.

Bad things are happening all around the world, but sending troops won't miraculously solve third world problems. Humanitarian aid, education, free trade are ways that can help them develop on their own and only this can end their problems once and for all.

South Asian here, I live in Pakistan and I'm here to say please let "the barbarians" fight it out and never intervene in a third world country again. Thank you.

Also thanks for acknowledging that were humans. We mourn too, we still haven't recovered from Peshawar.

It's terrorism threat is currently zero (active in both Iraq and Afghanistan). Furthermore France and Britain responded to mass immigration with polar opposite policies (secularism and multiculturalism respectively), yet both have an Islamism problem. Does this not suggest that it is mass immigration itself that is the problem?

Of course by "barbarians" I refer to the Taliban et al. - the kind of people who go into a school and murder 130 innocent children.

Why are you against the West fighting such a diabolical organisation?

I'm against western intervention in the form of war, drones, bombing or aid because it ultimately harms the locals more than it damages terrorism. Look at drones, for every 1 terrorist killed, 50 civilians die.

http://mic.com/articles/16949/predator-drone-strikes-50-civilians-are-killed-for-every-1-terrorist-and-the-cia-only-wants-to-up-drone-warfare

That's just unacceptable, are Pakistani civilians just collateral then? I needn't go into detail about the fiasco in Iraq and the complete destruction of Afghanistan's infrastructure, do I? And what has this murder of Pakistani, Afghan, Iraqi, Yemeni, Sudanese and many other civilians done? You've still got the Paris shootings. Nothing has changed.

I oppose even military aid, like funding because the inevitable result is western power putting pressure on MENASA countries to carry out unsuccessful policies. There's this thing in Pakistan called Zarb-e-Azb. It was a military operation to clear North Waziristan (province of Pakistan) from terrorists, backed by the Western powers of course.
It was a disaster.

http://www.tanqeed.org/2014/07/her-head-was-ripped-apart-voices-from-north-waziristan/

In fact it was Zarb-e-Azb, and not education, that triggered the Peshawar massacre and every Pakistani knows that. So basically I'm saying, leave it to us. Western countries don't suffer because of the Taliban a fraction as much as we do and yet they're constantly acting like the biggest victims who can hence dictate our domestic policy. Yeah, the Pakistani government is ****ed up. Yeah, the army keels pushing the wrong solutions but how long do you think local people will stand up to this? They won't and Pakistanis are mobilising against terrorism right now. The solution to terrorism is grassroots, save money on your predator drones, is all I'm saying.

Arguing that the present policy is bad is not an argument against all kinds of intervention in general. I would say that despite the mistakes that have been made, if a country's government is failing to prevent its citizens becoming terrorists, other people should intervene to stop them, as a matter of principle. When a civilian is accidentally killed by a drone strike, the rational person to blame for their death is first the terrorist, then the local or national government which is failing to tackle terrorism effectively (which can and often does mean doing the opposite).

Anyway, we haven't seen any more atrocities in the West on the scale of 9/11 yet, so they must be doing something right.

Disaffected youth latch onto idiotic behaviour.

Nothing new here. Sadly pur Pakistani community (and that's where most of the Muslims are) haven't done to gods a job at integrating and aren't exactly seen by many as being hard working and diligent. Therefore they get left behind in the job market compared to the Asian or indian community.

I genuinely thinly though that we're starting to see the Muslim community turn on these nutters now.

Most British Muslims aren't Pakistani, and most that have gone to Syria/Iraq aren't either http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11164905/Syrian-crisis-British-death-toll.html

Furthermore, the ones who are educated and diligent are actually more likely to be attracted to Radical Islam than the ones that aren't. If you look at the profile of a lot of these British Islamists, lots of them are studying at university or have decent jobs. Lots of top uni's in this country have problems with their isoc's doing questionable things or inviting radical speakers.

Most Muslims in the UK originate from Pakistan, and I nnever said anything about Syria.