al_yrpal wrote:Borders are a key thing to inhibit terrorism. They can also be used to punish plotters and terrorist sympathisers by withdrawing passports especially in our island.
All of which is a reaction to an action caused by bad illegal decisions taken that overrode peace with war,because we armed an unstable dictator,all for profit,and in the same way we still do with Saudi Arabia and other sick and barbarous regimes.
All of which?...Are ISIS solely a response to western involvement in the Middle East or are they also a product of fundamentalist readings of Islamic texts?
There is much inter-group violence that goes on between Muslims (and other non-Muslim natives) in majority Muslim countries that can have little to do with western involvement in these countries.
When Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head for wanting to continue her schooling, was this to do with western influence? What about when the Taliban target Christian children at a fairground in Pakistan? When ISIS target Shia minorities with bombs or slaughter Yazidi men and boys and imprison and rape the women and female children, has that anything to do with western involvement?
If they are committing these atrocities on non-western targets, then western involvement can't be the only factor.
pwa wrote:Islamist or not, many of these recent "terrorist" attacks, from the murders of Jo Cox and a shopkeeper in Scotland, to the mass murder on the Promenade des Angles, have mental and emotional health causes. In my view Islamism or whatever are outlets for people with violent mental health issues to express their anger. That is a consistent theme. I'm not sure how that helps us deal with the threat, though.
I agree that all of these people likely have mental issues of one shade or another, or they wouldn't act as they do, but to what extent does that make them incapable of taking responsibility for their actions? I think evidence of premeditation usually rules out any plea of clinical insanity in the courts and many of the attacks you describe were premeditated.
Save the murder of Jo Cox, which was by a man with some kind of nationalist ideology, every event you mentioned is notable by having been inspired by a fundamentalist reading of Islam. Much was made of the ideology of the killer of Jo Cox and what influence it may have had on him. When there are many more Islamically inspired terrorist attacks being committed in the west today than ones perpetrated by those with a nationalist ideology (or any other identifiable ideology), should we dismiss the influence of a fundamentalist reading of Islamic texts as being of no relevance?
53x13 wrote:To try and conflate this tragic event with a terrorist act is extremely disingenuous. Just as trying to conflate the death of Jo Cox in a similar light.
I'm not sure I agree.
Surely the point of these attacks, whether they be the one on Jo Cox or the Muslim gentleman in Scotland is to strike terror into hearts and make people act differently, beyond any grievance that the attacker has against the individual. The attacks are not only attacks on an individual, but symbolic and something of a warning to others.
I have to question your use of the word tragic. Tragic brings to mind something unforeseeable and unpreventable, like a natural disaster or some such. I think using it about a situation in which people have been hacked to death, whether one person or several, is not quite right. Grotesque or barbarous seem more fitting.
mjr wrote:Going back to Nice - TV showed a copy of the attacker's residence permit, so doesn't that mean he was a non-EU national who passed whatever checks to live in France? As France and the UK currently have broadly harmonised visa processes, is there any reason to suspect he wouldn't have been about as likely to gain UK residency? Trying to hang this on freedom of movement seems absurd.
What I asked for was input on whether people think increased attacks will affect freedom of movement to the UK post Brexit?