Forum menu
Good to hear that Jezza thinks that we should stand united in the face of our enemies
How times change
And true to form, trying to make as much political capital out of something he didn't actually say, here's Michael Fallon, the tories chief fantasist:
[i]"He seems to be implying that a terrorist attack in Manchester is somehow our fault, it’s somehow Britain’s fault."[/i]
They just can't help themselves can they?
They just can't help themselves can they?
Well he is trying to sneak into number 10 and steal the election...
And it is obviously rightfully theirsWell he is trying to sneak into number 10 and steal the election...
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key.
If it's a government. In contrast they regard terrorism as a terrific way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table."
Plus the party that gave us Iraq telling me that campaigns like Iraq create terrorism is a bit bloody rich.
"He seems to be implying that a terrorist attack in Manchester is somehow our fault, it’s somehow Britain’s fault." something he didn't actually say
If Corbyn *had* said it I think he'd have been pretty much right. If we'd propped up Gadaffi instead of helping to depose him I think there's a fair chance Manchester wouldn't have happened. Deposing (relatively) reasonable secular leaders and replacing them with Militant Islamic regemes is clearly going to create more terrorism. ....and let's not forget Fallon was so keen to replace Assad with Islamic extremists that he invented a completely fictional 'Liberal Army' in Syria as a pretext to do so.
Whether or not he can convince the electorate that bombing brown people isn't the answer though is another issue.
I think the electorate are on board with this and have been for years, even Labour admit it cost them a fair few votes. (Blair acknowledges it in 'A Journey', but rightly points out not enough to actually lose.)
If Corbyn *had* said it I think he'd have been pretty much right.
Agree. Take some examples from countries which don't think they can chang the world for the better by interfering with everything only to find they made it worse (every single time)
And true to form, trying to make as much political capital out of something he didn't actually say, here's Michael Fallon, the tories chief fantasist:"He seems to be implying that a terrorist attack in Manchester is somehow our fault, it’s somehow Britain’s fault."
They just can't help themselves can they?
That would be the Michael Fallon who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist...
If we'd propped up Gadaffi instead of helping to depose him I think there's a fair chance Manchester wouldn't have happened.
WPC Yvonne Fletcher
Berlin Discotheque
Lockerbie
To name but a few
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key
Did he say not to do anything?
Obvious crassness here
See, there's the difference. May simmply says 'we need to bring the country together' as if that'll have any effect. That Corbyn speech however is actually pretty moving.
If Corbyn *had* said it I think he'd have been pretty much right. If we'd propped up Gadaffi instead of helping to depose him I think there's a fair chance Manchester wouldn't have happened. Deposing (relatively) reasonable secular leaders and replacing them with Militant Islamic regemes is clearly going to create more terrorism.
This narrative doesn't stand up, he was anti Gadaffi, propping up that regime would just give a different grievence
but I wonder if foreign policy isn't the common factor here.
Many radicalised people have very explicitly said it is - which is a difficult body of evidence to ignore...
Corbyn is blinded into thinking standing by and doing nothing is the key.
What's the "doing [i]something[/i]" that'll fix all this, then?
The "everything we've done so far" hasn't exactly helped, has it?
Besides, he's not saying "do nothing" - he's saying talk to the buggers.
It's the only approach that has [i]ever[/i] worked against terrorism.
History tells you that.
Take some examples from countries which don't think they can chang the world for the better by interfering with everything only to find they made it worse (every single time)
That's not always true. A lot of the (relatively) reasonable secular leaders were put in place and propped up by intervention in the first place specifically to prevent militant lunatics taking over.
...but yeah, if you've got stability, and there's no liberal government in waiting then deposing the (relatively) reasonable secular leader is a very bad thing to do and the USA seem to have well understood that for a good few decades before 9/11.
Well doing nothing would have resulted in ISIL taking over Iraq.
[b]"UK foreign policy would change under a Labour government to one that "reduces rather than increases the threat" to the country, Jeremy Corbyn is to say".[/b]
ISIL and franchised groups are now active in close to 50 countries, the majority of which are not in the "West" and in most cases have played no role in Libya, Iraq or other "hotspots".
If Corbyn's diagnosis of the root cause of Islamist terror in the UK is foreign policy he's completely wrong.
ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
For this reason there is no scope for negotiating - ISIL and similar groups have no interest in doing so and what our domestic foreign policy has been / will be is by and large removed from the Islamist terror attacks that first started in the 1980s and are spreading in line with the adoption of Wahabi / Salafist Islam.
Even reasonably stable Islamic secular states like Indonesia are now having to deal with terrorism and unrest i.e. recent events in Aceh.
Well doing nothing would have resulted in ISIL taking over Iraq.
If we'd done nothing then ISIS wouldn't have been there in the first place.
Besides, he's not saying "do nothing" - he's saying talk to the buggers.It's the only approach that has ever worked against terrorism.
No it isn't, the peace in NI came about from military action, penetrations by the security services, and the passage of time leading to key personalities deciding to talk
On what basis do you want to talk to an ideology that is expansionary by military conquest, commits genocide, operates a system of slavery and even kills people of Islamic faith if it's the wrong denomination?
What's the "doing something" that'll fix all this, then?
That's a big topic but telling the terrorists that terrorism is a really effective way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table" isn't the best of starts.
WPC Yvonne Fletcher
Berlin Discotheque
LockerbieTo name but a few
Gadaffi was well back in his box at the point he was deposed. We had far more influence over him than we do over the various Islamist factions. Moreover Lybia under Gadaffi was in such good shape that immigrants from Eritrea didn't even get to Europe becuase they typically found good jobs in Lybia - now Lybia's a basket case run by loons migrants have to keep going to Europe. (Whether that's good or bad is another issue, but it shows that Gadaffi was a better leader than the Islamist factions.)
ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
But how to ISIL get supporters? They recruit from the poor, downtrodden and oppressed.
I believe history has shown that by making people happier they are less likely to take up arms for crackpot armies.
May be Corbyn could demonstrate his Philosophy here
I'm sure the airfare could be crowd funded
If Corbyn's diagnosis of the root cause of Islamist terror in the UK is foreign policy he's completely wrong.ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
I reckon your underlying point holds true - unless Corbyn has a time machine to undo everything that's already happened then him simply stating the obvious isn't going to help.
However, I reckon your listed objectives are wrong. I think there's a very strong case that ISIS are quite sincerely using these attacks to provoke the West (Rome) into a massive appocalyptic final battle at Dabiq:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Besides, he's not saying "do nothing" - he's saying talk to the buggers.It's the only approach that has ever worked against terrorism.
If by "the buggers" you mean ISIS, he isn't saying that.
No it isn't, the peace in NI came about from military action, penetrations by the security services, and the passage of time leading to key personalities deciding to talk
On what basis do you want to talk to an ideology that is expansionary by military conquest, commits genocide, operates a system of slavery and even kills people of Islamic faith if it's the wrong denomination?
He's not saying we should talk to ISIS, he's saying that military action has led to destroyed states in which groups like ISIS can prosper, and that we'd be better off a) not doing it in the first place, and b) where we have done it, keep a dialogue with local elements that can contribute to rebuilding the society.
Not too contentious, I'd say, though the usual suspects will make the customary distortions.
May be Corbyn could demonstrate his Philosophy here
What are you trying to say?
That ISIS are bad? We know this, so does Corbyn.
That we need to do something? Yes, we do.
That we should send in the troops? Won't work, and more people will die.
So - what? Come on, let's hear it.
but telling the terrorists that terrorism is a really effective way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table" isn't the best of starts.
The UK did this in Palestine in the 1940's when the Jewish were the terrorists and it ended very badly, and resulted in the mess we now have with Israel and the surrounding Arabs.
In NI it was military intelligence and ability to act on it, that was one of the primary drivers for bringing the IRA to the negotiating table.
He's not saying we should talk to ISIS, he's saying that military action has led to destroyed states in which groups like ISIS can prosper, and that we'd be better off a) not doing it in the first place, and b) where we have done it, keep a dialogue with local elements that can contribute to rebuilding the society.
That's fine as the "I wouldn't start from here" bit
Seeing as we are "here" what is Corbyn proposing is done in regard to ISIS
Has he actually stated what that is?
In NI it was military intelligence and ability to act on it, that was one of the primary drivers for bringing the IRA to the negotiating table.
No, no, no, you've got it all wrong:
It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.
That's fine as the "I wouldn't start from here" bitSeeing as we are "here" what is Corbyn proposing is done in regard to ISIS
Has he actually stated what that is?
See item (b) in my post.
In NI it was military intelligence and ability to act on it, that was one of the primary drivers for bringing the IRA to the negotiating table.No, no, no, you've got it all wrong:
It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.
In what way are those statements contradictory?
That's fine as the "I wouldn't start from here" bitSeeing as we are "here" what is Corbyn proposing is done in regard to ISIS
Has he actually stated what that is?
Hold a vigil, sing some songs, tie some ribbons to a fence and surround it with tea lights.
Job Jobbed, terrorism defeated overnight.
In what way are those statements contradictory?
One says Britain's tactics brought the IRA to the negotiating table. The other says terrorism brought Britain to the negotiating table.
They are opposite.
...but that's not why I find the second quote dispicable. The reason I find it dispicable is because it's directly encourgages people like Abedi to use terrorism to influence Britain. The last thing this scum need to hear is that killing kids gets you influence.
Even if someone thinks that "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us", it's unhelpful to say it in public.
Not too contentious, I'd say, though the usual suspects will make the customary distortions
Hold a vigil, sing some songs, tie some ribbons to a fence and surround it with tea lights.Job Jobbed, terrorism defeated overnight.
Quelle surprise!
Hold a vigil, sing some songs, tie some ribbons to a fence and surround it with tea lights.Job Jobbed, terrorism defeated overnight.
Is that what he really said? Or are you just being a git?
I wonder what goes through your mind when writing a post like this. Do you think you are helping, or making a sound point? I think you should have a bit of a think.
One says Britain's tactics brought the IRA. The other says terrorism brought Britain to the negotiating table.They are opposite.
Nope. Try again.
Britain and the IRA came to the negotiating table for different reasons. Nobody said otherwise.
The reason I find it dispicable is because it's directly encourgages people like Abedi to use terrorism to influence Britain.
Not really - a cursory glance at a history book is enough to see the truth of this.
Is that what he really said? Or are you just being a git?
Are you new around here?
Is that what he really said? Or are you just being a git?
Ok, so what did he say the solution and path forwards was?
Oh, sorry, he didn't, did he?
Just like with Kosovo, Iraq, Bosnia, Israel and everything else difficult, Corbyn is heavy on the critisism and light on the solutions.
Not really - a cursory glance at a history book is enough to see the truth of this.
I don't really agree, but even if it is true British politicians shouldn't be spelling out the political advantages of killing British kids.
I don't really agree, but even if it is true British politicians shouldn't be spelling out the political advantages of killing British kids.
what about the political disadvantages of killing kids abroad?
That we should send in the troops? Won't work,
Well military action between 2015 & 2016 reduced the ISIL controlled area by 14% and took 4 million people out of their control. Obviously that isn't the sole solution, but to say it doesn't work is disingenuous.
Corbyn is heavy on the critisism and light on the solutions.
Agree. In this case the critisim is largely aimed at his own party while he's trying to get that party elected.
"Vote Labour, we're the major cause of the Manchester atrocity, but the other parties didn't help much either. ...and by the way we think terrorism is really effective."
what about the political disadvantages of killing kids abroad?
Are there are any?
"Vote Labour, we're the major cause of the Manchester atrocity, but the other parties didn't help much either. ...and by the way we think terrorism is really effective."
seem to be conveniently forgetting...
Well military action between 2015 & 2016 reduced the ISIL controlled area by 14% and took 4 million people out of their control. Obviously that isn't the sole solution, but to say it doesn't work is disingenuous.
ISIL are the one part of militant Islam that *can* be defeated militarily. They are all about holding physical territory. When they lose that territory their point is gone.
Anyone who doubt this should read that Atlantic article which really spells it out.
seem to be conveniently forgetting...
Nope, I covered that **** up with "but the other parties didn't help much either". ....and mentioned Libya directly earlier in the thread.
Ok, so what did he say the solution and path forwards was?Oh, sorry, he didn't, did he?
No, it wasn't a speech of solutions. I think he's saying it's not easy, rather than saying 'we can fix this in 30 days it's gonna be yuge' like Trump did.
Set's the tone though don't you think?
Set's the tone though don't you think?
Patronizing voters by stating the bleeding obvious? I hope it doesn't set the tone.
Mind you, if I'm going to have my intelligence insulted I think I prefer a long speech to repetition of "strong and stable".
outofbreath - Member
Patronizing voters by stating the bleeding obvious?
By telling the truth, instead of lying?
How dare he, the weirdo.
By telling the truth, instead of lying?
The whole Labour manifesto is one long lie. They don't have the parliamentary time or the budget to do it.
It's not a lie, or the truth; it's a manifesto.
"a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives"
One I believe they are being honest about.
"a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives"
Whereas the Tories do a U-turn the minute things get a bit sticky.
It's not a lie, or the truth; it's a manifesto.
"a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives"
Wikipedia agrees with you, but I think most people consider the contents of a mnaifesto to be commitments to do (or not to do) the stated things.
...bit of a waste of time producing them if not.
Patronizing voters by stating the bleeding obvious?
🙄
Setting the tone by advocating diplomacy and development rather than violence. Didn't think it needed spelling out.
advocating diplomacy and development rather than violence.
“It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”
every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us.
Have you ever been involved in creating one?...bit of a waste of time producing them if not.
It's a fascinating process to go through. It takes a great deal of focus and collaboration to achieve and once you've got one, it can inform every decision you make.
Of course, once you've put forward a manifesto that gets voted into government you are committed to trying to achieve it and implement as much of it as possible, but as you say - parliament have their say too.
I'm sure they'll receive a lot of criticism for not instantly being able to buy back railways/water/grid and for not instantly being able to flood the streets with police and fix all the NHS problems, but hopefully they can continue to be honest along the way. Confident that honesty will still bring people with them, which will mean we don't get more of the vacuous waffle we've had for far too long in the Labour party.
Peak waffle was during the leadership election that Corbyn won. So centrist that you couldn't really say anything at all for fear of stepping either side of the line.
just5minutes - MemberIf Corbyn's diagnosis of the root cause of Islamist terror in the UK is foreign policy he's completely wrong.
It isn't, nor has he said anything that you could reasonably misinterpret or misrepresent as saying so. Phew!
outofbreath - MemberThat's a big topic but telling the terrorists that terrorism is a really effective way to "bring Britain to the negotiating table" isn't the best of starts.
It's demonstrably true. It is what happened before, whe the IRA "bombed their way to the negotiating table. Bashing Corbyn for supposedly saying it is bizarre when the Conservatives actually [i]did [/i]it and it worked.
Though, probably worth adding that Corbyn hasn't actually said this either. But that's probably not important, you keep being angry about what you imagine Corbyn said.
Corbyn hasn't actually said this either
Remind me, who *did* say it?
Outofbreath - what are you trying to say?
That Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell support terrorists? They don't. You realise you've really misused those quotes, right?
outofbreath - Member
The whole Labour manifesto is one long lie.
If you actually want a debate this time, tell us what you believe instead of just chipping in with sarky comments.
how do you explain the absence of islamic terrorist attacks here before our foreign policy ideal led to us bombing then in their lands?If Corbyn's diagnosis of the root cause of Islamist terror in the UK is foreign policy he's completely wrong.
SOURCE and when exactly did we start believing what they said?ISIL themselves have stated that their attacks on European countries are nothing to do with foreign policy and solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
summer of 2014. In June, ISIL had rapidly conquered large parts of western Iraq and proclaimed a caliphate. When ISIL advanced into Kurdish territory in the course of continued fighting and, accompanied by massacres and enslavement of the local population, forced hundreds of thousands of Christians and Yazidis to flee, the United States intervened and started bombing ISIL positions on 8 August 2014. With support from several other countries, these attacks were also extended to Syria in September. Since then, an international military coalition led by the United States has played a key role in supporting regional forces in the fight against ISIL. ISIL wasted no time in responding. Beginning on 12 August 2014, Western hostages that had been held by ISIL for some time were beheaded on camera to achieve maximum media attention. In September 2014, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the militant group’s spokesman, demanded that crusaders be killed wherever they are encountered, if necessary by running them over with a car or smashing their head with a rock. In January 2015 – ten months before the Paris attacks – an ISIL cell apparently on the verge of committing a terrorist attack was raided in the Belgian town of Verviers. This was followed by attacks against Western tourists in Tunisia in March and June of 2015. In August, a group of passengers managed to prevent a massacre on a Thalys train. More successful were the attacks in the Turkish cities of Suruç and Ankara, on a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, as well as in Paris and San Bernardino. This is but an incomplete list of successful and thwarted ISIL attacks. As outlined above, similar attacks followed in 2016. The connection between the various events was not properly understood at least until the Paris attacks. In hindsight, however, the timeline of events is very clear. As the United States started its attacks against ISIL, the hostage executions designed for maximum propaganda effects followed almost immediately. Shortly afterwards, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani made his call to arms, which initially seemed more helpless than threatening in its blind fury and recommended choice of methods. In September, perpetrators inspired by ISIL already began to carry out attacks, including in Canada and Australia. Starting in early 2015, however, after the war against ISIL has been expanded, attacks were carried out or at least attempted in quick succession. This sequence of events alone strongly suggests that, firstly, ISIL started its campaign against the West in the second half of 2014 in response to the international military coalition beginning its fight against ISIL
Anyone who thinks there is no connection between our foreign policy and their actions is deluded.
You realise you've really misused those quotes, right?
Lets let people make their own minds up:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And hey, while we're at it, lets not forget which party it was who put British troops on the streets of Northern Ireland in the first place!
[i]"I can get the Army in all right but it will be the devil of a job to get it out again"[/i]
Indeed...
You realise you've really misused those quotes, right?
The McDonnell quote is not being 'misused'. I've read it in context, I've read everything he's said about it at the time and subsiquently. It's exactly what he said, and it's exactly what he meant.
The Abbot one I'm not so sure about, I googled a while back and can find very little about it. Perhaps you can help - in what way is it being "misused"?
Seems the Daily Mail comments section agreed with Corbyn.
I never thought Id say this, but I'm starting to think that Corbyn is playing a political blinder - the conservatives seem to be misreading the publics mood at every possible turn.
but I'm starting to think that Corbyn is playing a political blinder
I never thought Id say this, but I'm starting to think that Corbyn is playing a political blinder - the conservatives seem to be misreading the publics mood at every possible turn.
I think Corbyn is an utter disaster for the Labour party and for British democracy, but:
1) Core voters are incredibly resiliant. Trump demonstrates that even the worst candidates still get the core vote of their party and Labour have a lot of core voters.
2) Historically governments lose elections, oppositions don't win them. I think most people think the Corbyn factor changes that truism - perhaps it won't, or perhaps not by much.
3) The pollsters have added a fiddle factor towards the blue party. Who knows if that's right in the current situation.
So I think it's gonna be very close. (Bear in mind my political predictions are always wrong.)
Let's try not let this thread devolve to the level of the EU thread though lads, I got banned for a few days due to a comment in the Manchester thread which was fair enough - let's try and have a more thoughtful open minded discussion without insults being thrown down along party political lines.
I have my reservations about Corbyn as well - but I won't go into them whilst Im posting from my phone.
I don't think corbyn has what it takes to win this election, but I do think Theresa May has what it takes to lose it.
I don't think corbyn has what it takes to win this election, but I do think Theresa May has what it takes to lose it.
Pretty good way to put it.
Yeah, I'm getting Hillary Clinton flashbacks whenever I hear or see May.....
Im not so sure labour would be polling so well with a Blairite though - Corbyn seems to be making people interested in politics again. I consider myself a hardcore Blairite as well.....
[quote=ninfan ]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROKXlvYMKQc
so you think in 20yrs time we'll be quoting video of theresa may chanting strong and stable?
Which plank said the IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table?!
Off on a tangent but the security services had infiltrated every level of the IRA at that point, meaning that the vile Adams, Mcguinness etc had no choice but to start talking.
1 in 4 IRA members was a British agent at the time rising to 1 in 2 at a senior level....it was impossible for them to carry on....this is an approach I'd happily see in the fight against Islamist terror in the UK.
Source: belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/half-of-all-top-ira-men-worked-for-security-services-28694353.html
Anyone who thinks there is no connection between our foreign policy and their actions is deluded.
What foreign policy wouldn't have a connection to their actions?
Off on a tangent but the security services had infiltrated every level of the IRA at that point, meaning that the vile Adams, Mcguinness etc had no choice but to start talking.
Talks first started in the late 1980s. If they had "no choice" how was it that the IRA managed to stage a successful bombing campaign nearly a decade later?
I've read everything he's said about it at the time and subsiquently. It's exactly what he said, and it's exactly what he meant.
Did you read the bit where he apologised for saying that, and explained that he was just trying to placate them so they'd join in the talks?
It almost sounds as if you're trying to make out that Corbyn, a lifelong pacifist, is actually a terrorist. Sounds a bit bonkers to me...?
first part is true the second is notthe security services had infiltrated every level of the IRA at that point, meaning that the vile Adams, Mcguinness etc had no choice but to start talking.
What happened was the British army admitted/realised that they could not defeat the IRA and the IRA - Mc Guiness in particular- began to see that they also could not beat the British army and that talks and peace and politics was the only solution.
Look we have peace lets not argue over who "won" [ nor re write history] its pointless we all lost till we had peace.
deviant - MemberWhich plank said the IRA bombed their way to the negotiating table?!
Bruce Morrison, US Congressman, Andy Oppenheimer. But also, it's clearly true.
deviant - MemberOff on a tangent but the security services had infiltrated every level of the IRA at that point, meaning that the vile Adams, Mcguinness etc had no choice but to start talking.
OK, let me remind you what happened in 1996 as I think you've forgotten. The IRA ceasfire started in 94, after the UK government promised to allow Sinn Fein a place in negotiations in the Downing Street Declaration.
In 1996, Major lost his majority and became dependent on the Ulster Unionists to hold onto power, and [i]purely coincidentally[/i] decided to renege on that promise and impose extra conditions.
This led to the end of the ceasfire and the Docklands bombing- as a result of which which Major withdrew the extra demands and Sinn Fein were allowed back into negotiations.
None of this is controversial or disputed.
Anyone think it was unreasonable to negotiate with Sinn Fein?
Jezza getting Brillo'd @ 19:00 tonight.
Anyone think it was unreasonable to negotiate with Sinn Fein?
Nope...
I don't think corbyn has what it takes to win this election, but I do think Theresa May has what it takes to lose it.
I get your point, but I'm picking up a definite change of mood out there - Corbyn's stuff is starting to land with people, I think.
...solely motivated by a desire to:
1. attack the kuffir
2. kill non believers
3. establish a worldwide caliphate.
4. see an end to secularism, liberalism and democracy.
Daesh [i]did[/i] say these things - it doesn't mean (and they didn't say) that the west's foreign policies in the Middle East didn't light the fire.
There's no "solely" here.
Here's an article which is hard to argue against on any intellectual or logical level:
It's as much "fact" as any piece declaring the opposite view, so when everything else for and against cancels itself out, all we have left is:
[list]- we went into the Middle East expressly to stop Islamic fundamentalism from reaching our shores;[/list][list]- we got more of exactly that, and the trend continues.[/list]
Occam's Razor, folks...
Anyone think it was unreasonable to negotiate with Sinn Fein?
No. It's got us to where we are today.