Also TrPrado - how you can be an apologist for these guys essentially arguing that we (collectively) brought it on ourselves for the accident of being born into Western democracies is beyond belief.

The people in that cafe could be sympathisers with the plight of oppressed Muslims everywhere and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference.

They still went to work this morning - went to get their morning coffee (and yes I have personally been in that cafe myself within the last month), and now have no idea if they are going home tonight.


They didn't bomb anyone or anything.

trprado suck my grammar hating asshole, and also i was referring to the palestinian states when talking about the blaming our govts more than their own. wusti i know trprado he is a 9 foot tall black NBA player and a bitch who doesnt know how to empathize

I'm not an apologist for terrorists. I never said that that man in that coffee shop is in the right. I'm saying you're ignorant of major factors of why some people hate us. Terrorists are evil and don't give a shit who they kill. Most of their victims are fellow Muslims.
James: It feels to me like you aren't taking this seriously.

what am i ignorant of? what would those major factors be? please make a list so i can prove you wrong 1 by 1

and as far as oppressive bombing goes i do not approve of, hell 22% of the confirmed casualties have been civilians, 5% of whom are minors. As soon as im legally able to vote that will play into my vote big time.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
-Isaac Asimov

Im an isolationist wise-ass living in an imperialist bitch-society

*it* in front 'of'

That first part wasn't aimed at you, James. The only part that was immediately followed the colon.

ah i see. well it is 11:49 and i dont take anything seriously after... well, apparently 11:30. i know it is a serious situation but i try to stay light. LSD helps too

Now i do like to blame the US for all the world's woes; but it wasn't always the US (and Australia isn't in the US) It was once the French and British who ruled over the middle east; and i learned last night that the Germans helped start Islamic Jihad; (background, a friend of mine is a historian who mainly studies Irish history around the 1910-25 period, think world war 1 and irish independance) And he recentl uncovered evidence that the Germans took Irish POWs who had been fighting in the British army and trained them to hate the Brits and start a war agains them back in Ireland - but they also trained the POWs from Egypt (and probably other British and French Colonies) trying to open up an extra front against the Brits, along with their allies in the Ottoman Empire... They ended up just sending them to fight in Turkey - as it happens against Australian forces who landed at Galipole... The Muslim Brotherhood was established 4 years later.

So 'the west' - including Australia - has been fucking with the middle east for longer than just The US and Iraq; the French and Brits ruled most of the former Ottoman territories (apart from Turkey itself and Greece) until about world war 2.

From what I'm seeing, this is literally just 1 guy, so suggestions that this is somehow informative of "the muslim world" in general seem more than a little hyperbolic.

I enjoy how most of the people arguing against Wusti immediately run away once goldfinger starts making some interesting and not easily refuted points.

At least I'm not one of those. Viva la Odd-One-Out!!

I suspect it's more to do with a combination not wanting to wade through JY's posts and the time Goldie made his comments rather than running away from them.

I'm not jumping into this arguement - both sides have valid points; i'm just adding some historic knowledge, lest we be dommed to repeat it.

On a slightly tangential note, I'm really proud that #illridewithyou is a thing that happened in response.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-15/sydney-cafe-siege-ends-after-police-storm-site-of-hostage-crisis.html

The terrorist was out on bail for accessory to murdering his wife and multiple sexual assault charges. He was able to do this because of Western justice whereas in a Islamic country he probably would have been executed already for the first charge.

Good points by orathaic and Randomizer.

So this guy is just a punk criminal posing as an Islamist then

How is someone who takes hostages and says he's doing it in the name of fundamentalist Islam just "posing" as an Islamist? What more does one have to do to be an Islamist, if literally doing what the fundamentalist ideology commands isn't enough?

It baffles me why so many people feel the need to put an asterisk by their criticism of the Islamic State. This death cult is imposing medieval religious law on the entirety of upper Mesopotamia and a sizable chunk of Libya, and yet the knee-jerk reaction of many people is to trot out the old brocards about how bad Western imperialism is.

These people are illiberalism incarnate. It ought not be controversial at all to oppose them.

You can both oppose them and also recognise that in large part they exist because of western imperialism. You seem to be about the only person who thinks these stances are mutually exclusive.

mendax has it. Western Imperialism works its way in because it makes the job of such groups as the Islamic State much easier.

A literal reading of the Qur'an would produce this sort of monstrosity regardless of what the West did, does, or will do. Blind religious fanaticism always has and always will exist. The Islamic State is no more a product of imperialism than the Waco siege or Florence under Savonarola was. It's the logical end result of a literalistic, fundamentalist reading of an antique book.

But that ignores what I said. Western Imperialism fractures the area that no modern country there can be truly independent. The government fracturing gives fundamentalist groups an easier foothold, and bombing by Western countries followed by fundamentalists pledging justice against this gives the people something to turn to (until they realize how major of nutjobs they are, going against some of the things they claim to resent and killing insanely large swaths of Muslims). These groups would be easier to ignore without Western Imperialism.

"These groups would be easier to ignore without Western Imperialism."

Do you think we're bombing Syria and Iraq just to be mean? We're bombing because the Islamic State is an existential threat to everything we hold dear. All the things people used to say about Islamism that we dismissed as hyperbole? Now it's actually come true. These lunatics rule an area the size of Britain. They have gold and oil. They are imposing unspeakably cruel religious law on the area and are *gaining* power and influence around the world.

We can't ignore them. They're coming for us. They really, really do believe the things they say. They act on them. Given the chance, they would absolutely attack us. We're talking about people who are against everything we take for granted, from women's rights to even legislatures!

But go ahead, keep kicking Western imperialism. Because it's more important to prove left-liberal bona fides than to face the threat and condemn people who would drag us back over a thousand years.

@ Invictus: "it's more important to prove left-liberal bona fides than to face the threat and condemn people who would drag us back over a thousand years."

Strawman.

Neither TrPrado nor mendax has argued that IS should not be condemned.

You're the one with the strawman. I never said that you people don't condemn the Islamic State, but that there is always an asterisk about Western imperialism, rather than a full-throated condemnation of this entity which is illiberalism incarnate. In context, my point is clear.

@ Invictus

Ok, how's this?

I agree that Islamic State is illiberalism incarnate. They are an evil organisation who are causing death and suffering on a large scale, and should be tackled.

The West's tactics against them are not working, and in the wider picture, the attitude, policy, and behaviour of western powers such as the US and UK, both now, and over the past few decades, has actually been making the situation worse, and helping IS gain recruits.

Satisfied? I could not have condemned IS more clearly - yet I still make the point that the US, UK and their allies are fucking things up.

Not really. You admit the Islamic State needs to be "tackled" and yet say the Western response to them is only making things worse. What else are we to do differently? Do you want more bombing, or invasion? Or ought we just leave these people to their own devices?

It strikes me that you're still trying to have it both ways: get a kick in at the West, and also say the Islamic State are evil.

So if you oppose the Islamic State, you have to be 100% in support of US / UK / Western policy? No criticism of the west's approach is permitted? The only way to fight religious lunatics is to blow stuff up?

Apparently:

A: I love Islamic State
or
B: I want to suck Uncle Sam's dick

are the only views permitted in Invictus's mind.