Why some use UK foreign policy/colonialism as an excuse for terrorism? Watch

xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
There aren't enough words permitted for my title, but:

Why do SOME (note that word, I did not say all) muslims always use Colonialism and/or British foreign policy as some kind of justification for terrorist acts, killing civilians in the UK?

Neither of those things make it acceptable to carry out terrorist activity in the UK, neither of them mean that British civilians deserve to be killed.

Firstly, Colonialism is something that the British aristocracy did hundreds of years ago; it isn't the fault of the current generations of English people. We have no control over what our ancestors did.

Also, just with respect to the argument that (the shameful) British looting during the colonial years "caused" the poverty in third world nations (Bhangladesh, Pakistan, African countries)....It wasn't the sole, probably not the principal, factor in those countries' poverty; they were already behind educationally and technologically when the British arrived, that is how the British were able to take advantage and loot (and this was morally reprehrensible, nobody reasonable would dispute that; human beings are cruel). Of course, Britain's actions did not help, but they weren't the initial cause of the poverty; the countries were already behind.

UK foreign policy -I don't agree with warmongers like Tony Blair, and I don't think anyone wanted war in Iraq. However, this does not give (a minority of!) Muslims living in Britain the right to 'seek revenge' on Britain by taking Civilian lives in the UK. I hear quite a few Muslims saying 'oh what about UK foreign policy?', as though it a justification, whenever a terror attack occurs (e.g. the Manchester arena, Westminster a few years ago).

I would be very interested to hear what Muslims, and others, think about this.

Everyone can stay calm - this is a place for discussion, not rants at each other please. Thank you everyone!
2
reply
Tempest II
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
(Original post by IRA_pepe)
well your country has probably killed more people unjustly than any other country. this is not just muslims i live in ireland and if the IRA started attacking england again i know alot of people would sign straight up (me included) so its not just muslims who hate english colonialism
I assume you've never heard of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or the People's Republic of China?

Oh bore off troll.
4
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Tempest II)
I assume you've never heard of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or the People's Republic of China?

Oh bore off troll.
Same things I immediately thought of
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by xyz94)
Why do SOME (note that word, I did not say all) muslims always use Colonialism and/or British foreign policy as some kind of justification for terrorist acts, killing civilians in the UK?
1. Can you name any of these Muslims?

2. Do you have cast iron concrete proof that they carried out a terrorist attack because of British foreign policy and / or colonialism?

3. Should it be a legal requirement that all British citizens support and uphold British foreign policy no matter what?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
Some people do use that excuse, although looking around it mainly seems to be lefties will green hair and pins up their noses...
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
Maybe if you live in Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan and your family were shot / injured / killed by the British army some time in the last 20 years, or you grew up hearing similar storied, you might feel a bit aggrieved?

But you are right, there is no excuse for it. Our conduct abroad is always considered, gentlemanly and lawful.
1
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by Arran90)
1. Can you name any of these Muslims?

2. Do you have cast iron concrete proof that they carried out a terrorist attack because of British foreign policy and / or colonialism?

3. Should it be a legal requirement that all British citizens support and uphold British foreign policy no matter what?
1. They are not in the public eye, they are just ordinary people (I live in an area with a large Muslim population.).
2. This question is not about the terrorists' motives themselves, but about the attitude of ordinary Muslims towards the terrorists, and what they THINK are the reasons behind it. I've heard a lot of muslims alluding to 'foreign policy' as a justification for terrorist acts ('I don't see why everyone cares that a few white people are dead when the UK killed lots of people in Iraq,', statements like that, as though that makes it acceptable to just kill British civilians. ) Didn't you read my question?

3. No, but there is a requirement that everyone in Britain abides by the laws, which includes not carrying out terrorism, or inciting it.
0
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by ByEeek)
Maybe if you live in Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan and your family were shot / injured / killed by the British army some time in the last 20 years, or you grew up hearing similar storied, you might feel a bit aggrieved?

But you are right, there is no excuse for it. Our conduct abroad is always considered, gentlemanly and lawful.
They may well feel aggrieved, but that does mean they can just behave as they wish in Britain towards civilians.

A society with different cultures co-existing really cannot work if you have certain groups of people who hate the indigenous British population and way of life, and have no regard for these people or their culture, and are happy to incite violence towards them, and support someone who does. Now, I am NOT saying that "all" Muslims - or any other social group for that matter, could be Irish IRA sympathisers equally! - are like this, just some that I've come across. I was quite shocked and disgusted.
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by xyz94)
1. They are not in the public eye, they are just ordinary people (I live in an area with a large Muslim population.).
The fact that you can't name anybody implies that you could be pointing fingers and laying the blame on people who do not exist.

2. This question is not about the terrorists' motives themselves, but about the attitude of ordinary Muslims towards the terrorists, and what they THINK are the reasons behind it. I've heard a lot of muslims alluding to 'foreign policy' as a justification for terrorist acts ('I don't see why everyone cares that a few white people are dead when the UK killed lots of people in Iraq,', statements like that, as though that makes it acceptable to just kill British civilians. ) Didn't you read my question?
Although Jihad is a complex topic, and so is guerilla warfare, in Islam it is strictly haraam to carry out a terrorist act against civilians or persons unknown. Whilst it's plausible that a fair few Muslims believe in taking up arms against the state because of British foreign policy, I'm inclined to say that next to no Muslims would ever condone a terrorist attack against civilians similar to what the IRA carried out during the Troubles.

3. No, but there is a requirement that everyone in Britain abides by the laws, which includes not carrying out terrorism, or inciting it.
True, although it's unwise for the establishment to create suspect communities.
0
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Arran90)
The fact that you can't name anybody implies that you could be pointing fingers and laying the blame on people who do not exist.

I am not going to name regular Muslims, who are not famous, but just acquaintances of mine, on an Internet forum. That would be unfair. The point is, I am telling the truth and I'm sure that others have met similar people with similar views. Why are you so intent on trying to say that I'm lying about this? Why would I?


Although Jihad is a complex topic, and so is guerilla warfare, in Islam it is strictly haraam to carry out a terrorist act against civilians or persons unknown.

I think that all depends on how you interpret Islam; who gets to decide what the 'right' interpretation is?

Whilst it's plausible that a fair few Muslims believe in taking up arms against the state because of British foreign policy,

'A fair few'....Yes indeed, and that 'fair few' part is concerning to me, is not to you? I have NO issue with Muslims as a group per se, but this 'fair few' believing that taking up Arms against the British state is acceptance, and worse still, wanting to encourage it or support it, is something I do have a problem with, and we need to prevent it. That's why the Government introduced Prevent.

I'm inclined to say that next to no Muslims would ever condone a terrorist attack against civilians similar to what the IRA carried out during the Troubles.

They should never condone ANY kind of terrorist attack, whatever the magnitude. And the IRA are just as bad, yes.


True, although it's unwise for the establishment to create suspect communities.

Why is is unwise, given the 'fair few' you mention above, and which I alluded to in my original question? What choice do the government have? Public interest is it stake.


Just out of interest, are you a Muslim?
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by xyz94)
Just out of interest, are you a Muslim?
No, but like you I have lived in an area with a large Muslim population.
0
reply
we knnow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by xyz94)
Just out of interest, are you a Muslim?
He has a point without any evidence statistics or anything other than he said she said evidence that your giving your point is invalid and currently cannot be supported
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by xyz94)
They may well feel aggrieved, but that does mean they can just behave as they wish in Britain towards civilians.

A society with different cultures co-existing really cannot work if you have certain groups of people who hate the indigenous British population and way of life, and have no regard for these people or their culture, and are happy to incite violence towards them, and support someone who does. Now, I am NOT saying that "all" Muslims - or any other social group for that matter, could be Irish IRA sympathisers equally! - are like this, just some that I've come across. I was quite shocked and disgusted.
It can and it does. But the umbridge I have is stating that somehow British society is somehow a cut above the rest. It is not and there are numerous examples throughout history, both old and more recent of the British treating other societies and groups of people appallingly. And then we have the Gaul to judge those who treat us with contempt? It is British double standards at its best.

Yes, what is being done to us is horrendous. I do not condone it. But at the same time, I understand to a certain extent the motivation behind those who seek to do it. Two very different things. As a teacher, I find the behaviour of my kids is generally a reflection of how I am behaving in the classroom. So if I am stressed, they become stressed. The same is true in the real world. The only difference is that we have become so accustomed to seeing wars happening a long way away on the TV that it is a bit of a shock to the system when a small fraction of that war happens on our high street.

If we want people to treat us with respect, perhaps we need to adjust our foreign policy accordingly and stop seeing ourselves as some sort of world moral authority.
Last edited by ByEeek; 1 week ago
0
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by ByEeek)
It can and it does. But the umbridge I have is stating that somehow British society is somehow a cut above the rest. It is not and there are numerous examples throughout history, both old and more recent of the British treating other societies and groups of people appallingly. And then we have the Gaul to judge those who treat us with contempt? It is British double standards at its best.

Yes, what is being done to us is horrendous. I do not condone it. But at the same time, I understand to a certain extent the motivation behind those who seek to do it. Two very different things. As a teacher, I find the behaviour of my kids is generally a reflection of how I am behaving in the classroom. So if I am stressed, they become stressed. The same is true in the real world. The only difference is that we have become so accustomed to seeing wars happening a long way away on the TV that it is a bit of a shock to the system when a small fraction of that war happens on our high street.

If we want people to treat us with respect, perhaps we need to adjust our foreign policy accordingly and stop seeing ourselves as some sort of world moral authority.
You are failing to distinguish between 'war' (which is complaint with international law, however awful war is, it is 'playing by the rules'), and terrorism, which is neither of those things.

It's irrelevant what a person thinks of the foreign policy of a country he resides in; he still, nonetheless, has to abide by the laws and act with a duty of care towards the civilians of that country. Foreign policy is not a justification for terrorism.
0
reply
xyz94
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by Arran90)
No, but like you I have lived in an area with a large Muslim population.
Hi Arran, I just wondered whether you'd actually seen my responses to your earlier reply? (Which I've copied below).

'The fact that you can't name anybody implies that you could be pointing fingers and laying the blame on people who do not exist.

I am not going to name regular Muslims, who are not famous, but just acquaintances of mine, on an Internet forum. That would be unfair. The point is, I am telling the truth and I'm sure that others have met similar people with similar views. Why are you so intent on trying to say that I'm lying about this? Why would I?


Although Jihad is a complex topic, and so is guerilla warfare, in Islam it is strictly haraam to carry out a terrorist act against civilians or persons unknown.

I think that all depends on how you interpret Islam; who gets to decide what the 'right' interpretation is?

Whilst it's plausible that a fair few Muslims believe in taking up arms against the state because of British foreign policy,

'A fair few'....Yes indeed, and that 'fair few' part is concerning to me, is not to you? I have NO issue with Muslims as a group per se, but this 'fair few' believing that taking up Arms against the British state is acceptance, and worse still, wanting to encourage it or support it, is something I do have a problem with, and we need to prevent it. That's why the Government introduced Prevent.

I'm inclined to say that next to no Muslims would ever condone a terrorist attack against civilians similar to what the IRA carried out during the Troubles.

They should never condone ANY kind of terrorist attack, whatever the magnitude. And the IRA are just as bad, yes.


True, although it's unwise for the establishment to create suspect communities.

Why is is unwise, given the 'fair few' you mention above, and which I alluded to in my original question? What choice do the government have? Public interest is it stake.
0
reply
Arran90
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by xyz94)
'A fair few'....Yes indeed, and that 'fair few' part is concerning to me, is not to you? I have NO issue with Muslims as a group per se, but this 'fair few' believing that taking up Arms against the British state is acceptance, and worse still, wanting to encourage it or support it, is something I do have a problem with, and we need to prevent it.
Muslims are far from the only people who believe that taking up arms against the state is acceptable!

Although individual Muslims and small communities of Muslims have held grievances towards the British state for multiple reasons over the space of many decades, the grievances sharply accelerated and mobilised Muslim communities en-masse when Tony Blair decided to go to war in Iraq in 2003.

That's why the Government introduced Prevent.
Prevent is a complete disaster. Under the NuLab government it was about creating an official 'British' form of Islam that backed the illegal war in Iraq. Under the ConDem government it changed to opposing non-violent extremism rather than violent terrorism. Something that lacks a clear definition apart from obnoxious or controversial political views, and it has even resulted in teachers reporting reception class kids to the authorities for saying "I live in a terrorist house" rather than "I live in a terraced house".

More recently the the Court of Appeal has deemed Prevent duty guidelines on inviting controversial speakers to universities as unlawful following a judicial review that stated it violated freedom of speech.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/03/09/co...s-is-unlawful/

One of the biggest defects with Prevent is the way in which the political establishment studiously ignore the elephant in the room, that is British foreign policy, as the root cause of most of the grievances Muslims have towards the government.

Why is is unwise, given the 'fair few' you mention above, and which I alluded to in my original question? What choice do the government have? Public interest is it stake.
As I have previously stated, British foreign policy is the elephant in the room.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by xyz94)
You are failing to distinguish between 'war' (which is complaint with international law, however awful war is, it is 'playing by the rules'), and terrorism, which is neither of those things.

It's irrelevant what a person thinks of the foreign policy of a country he resides in; he still, nonetheless, has to abide by the laws and act with a duty of care towards the civilians of that country. Foreign policy is not a justification for terrorism.
If your family was killed for the political gain of someone totally unrelated to you, why does it matter if the kilker was wearing an identifiable uniform or fighting off the back of a piece of signed paper held at the UN?

Other than on a technicality of rules only followed by counties when it suits them, I see little or no difference between war and terrorism. The outcomes of each are identical for all stakeholders involved. Death, terror and destruction.

Are sovereign armies that commit genocide committing war or terrorism?
0
reply
simon_g
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
blaming currently living Brits for the total f****p that Britain helped to do in the Iraq is something that is perfectly fine and acceptable
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (93)
16.61%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (58)
10.36%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (99)
17.68%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (84)
15%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (56)
10%
How can I be the best version of myself? (170)
30.36%

Watched Threads

View All