yes there is an oil issue at play, but explain how the 4 muslims in growing up in Britain were in any way impacted by oil wars in the middle east? They were not. They obviously felt more Muslim than British. I am not saying the oil wars are right, they are not, but in this case those 4 guys were not displaced families from US bombs in iraq or similar.
You make some valid points - but let me make one thing clear - I am in no way an apologist for their actions. Far from it - they have forfeited their rights to life as far as I'm concerned. No, its just that I am more concerned with getting at the root cause of the problem - I actually don't want to see a repitition of what occurred last Friday.
And to my mind, the root cause is not Islam. For years they told us that the root cause of the troubles in Ireland was religion also - in that case it was supposed to be Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
Of course, this was just a red herring, the legitimation that was expediant to maintain an exploitative domination - the root of the problem was British emperialism. But if you say that out loud in the current climate you are supposed to be some kind of lilly livered nancy boy.
I mean, I know there are those among us that have a much stronger stomach than me, and a more sterling backbone - they are most likely calling for co-ordinated airstrikes and boots on the ground etc etc. as we speak.
Whereas I personally have been calling for a more honest debate on the issues on foreign policy re. the middle east for a long time, certainly way before 9/11. I have had, and do have, relatives serving out there - so I have a personal vested interest you could say.
Off to bed for me now. I'll just say this before I go - history repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce.
All you have to work out is, are you tragic - or are you a joke ?
I do not think we should have ever put one western boot in the middle east, ever. Air strikes are a waste of time too. The only legitimate targets are attacking WMD facilities (not imaginary ones, real ones). And by that I mean attacking the actual WMD facility itself, not the entire country. but that is just my opinion.
In the context of war, air strikes are certainly not a waste of time, but an essential aspect of any winning strategy. Your talk about "legitimate targets" is not framed correctly in any particular context. War, rooting out insurgents, spy and covert activity looking for singular targets, blah blah blah.
Air strikes in the absence of a boots on the ground general war are a completely different matter. Here "air strikes" must be segregated into styles, such as fighter/bomber vs. drone strike, versus B52 converntional munitions, vs cruise missile precision targeting. These must then be viewed in line with the nature of supporting ground forces, and their level of competence and strength against an enemy.
There is nothing nice about this stuff.
you missing the point. Air strikes are great at blowing shit up and even great at killing people you are targeting.
what it doesn't explain, is that for every 10 jihadis you kill, you probably create another 50 through the collateral damage plus bad public relations.
so its pointless. Almost every single one of these Isis recruits that I have seen interviewed has one common thread in their logic : they become enraged at seeing infidels in the holy land and enraged at the videos of infidels killing muslims.
save the strikes for major threats, like WMD facilities. Rather spend all that money on strengthening borders and intelligence. Lacking something to fight and lacking an immediate target to vent their frustrations on, these guys ALWAYS end up killing each other, they hate each other a lot too, they just hate the west more.
ISIS is trying to get US to commit to battle, as well as Europe. It's a jihadi recruiting machine x 1000 for them.
Obviously never happen as the weapons companies will go out of business.