To think we should note how quickly the media suggests the causes of attrocities?

[JeremyCunt]

First, and above all, my thoughts are with all those affected by the terrible events in Belgium. I'm so very sorry this has happened.

I think it is notable how quickly the mainstream media suggests who is behind it (this started even before the event - "expect 'revenge attacks' " etc). Facts simply cannot be adequately known at this stage. Certainly there's been no time for any thorough/impartial investigation (not that the impartiality element is likely to ever happen). And yet we're being led quite quickly to certain conclusions ("The attacks come four days after Salah Abdeslam, the main fugitive in the Paris attacks, was seized in Brussels" states the BBC). I'm making no comment about the veracity of these conclusions, but I think they're yet another demonstration of how easy we - the populus - are to lead.

No, Bill, we are not standing back watching the Saudis. We are intimately involved in, and fund, these attacks.

But that is the sort of thing that does lead to radicalization. How can it not? Sure scripture is used by some to justify violence but without the anger created by the wests actions there wouldn't be the critical mass of footsoldiers there is now.

Doesn't matter what the ideology, there will always be extremists and those willing to resort to violence. Usually these are just a few outliers in any grouping. Incidents like this act as recruiters of ordinary guys who are angry and not necessarily theologian.

I'm sure it's absolutely the same in Yemen or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia and what happened in Brussels isn't an immediate concern for them.

And that would make it OK how?

I'm at a loss about how to respond to that.

I have read it Jeremy. It's an absolutely laughable article with the most tenuous of links. Along the lines of x gets some funding from y who is supported by z who once spoke at the same conference as a who once worked with b who once expressed admiration for cwho associated with a young d who now supports right wing extremist e. And then extrapolating from that that x must therefore be supported by right wing extremists who've infiltrated his organisation.

It's such a joke that actually with a little digging you can link the publishing website Alter-net to exactly the same people in the same way:

futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/nafeez-ahmed-and-the-hypocrisy-of-guilt-by-association/

I didn't say it was'OK. I just think it's absolutely normal and understandable to be more concerned about things that you are affected by directly and that you can change.

and that you can change.

But the events "we" can change are the ones in Yemen, etc. Because those are the ones we help to carry out.

Are you equally as annoyed with the Chinese and Russians for supporting the other side?

And you're falling into the trap there of thinking that Muslim nations have no agency and are entirely passive entities buffeted by outside forces.

I think they'd enjoy blame being heaped on Muslims

Blame is also being heaped on the west though isnt it...

I dont know if anyone saw the documentary on Saudi> It was on ITV this week and is on i player,

I had not finished it but I commented on here I was not seeing any different between saudi and ISIS.

I watched the end this am and that was a comment that rounded off the program by a commentator on it.

Yes we are in my view too emeshed with saudi, but really, lets say we STOP dealing with them, does anyone think, this will stop Wahbism?

Really?

This is problem, saudi ideology and saudi money having the power to support it.

I cant see us separating from them, will stop shaira law.

You can't separate the events carried out in the me to the events carried out in Europe. There are two strands to this situation, the deeper political background and the visceral reactions of ordinary people who are threatened. It seems the debate (not on here)glosses over the normal human response to injustices, beyond the usual handwringing response to radicalization and the rise of the far right.
I don't know what the answer is, but treating normal human reactions as aberrant is not it.
(Btw by calling it normal I'm not condoning it, just recognising it's part of our nature)

And another disclaimer, its the instinct to band together in the face of attack, to follow, to seek answers I am talking about.

I'd like to know why the atrocities committed by muslims on other muslims are not garnishing outrage from moderate muslims or SJW's. Where are the mass demos denouncing Saudi (or IS, AQ, the Taleban, Boko etc) ?

Saudi's proxy war in Yemen is part of the centuries long never ending religious conflict between Sunnis and Shias.

The West is involved ostensibly to prevent AQ & IS from gaining a foothold.

Morocco & Eqypt are part of the coalition that has cluster bombed both Sunni & Shia Yemeni muslim civilians. And yet fanatics of Moroccan origin attacked Belgium. Which muslim children did Belgium bomb ?

Sallyingforth I am not sure how it helps if the general Muslim population are on the defense all the time. This leads into discussions we have heard a million times Islam is a peaceful religion, these terrorists are not real Muslims, no Muslims support these acts only those who are deluded etc

Why would I think just because someone has not denounced a terrorist act they support just because they share the same religion ?

The discussions that need to be had are why are so many young people in support and are prepared to become terrorists often giving up their own life and are willing to kill so many others. This needs to be discussed openly by Muslim leaders and politicians and those who work in the community to work on understanding this issue

Maajid Nawaz was on This Week Thursday evening raisinf these questions and stating that there is support in the Muslim community for Charlie Hebdo and other attacks and why is this not being discussed he was quicky shut down, Andrew Neil, Michael Portilo and Chuka Umunna looked uncomfortable and the subject moved along to something that might not seem so offensive to the Muslims

So again it's being brushed under the carpet

jeremy I think who funds Quilliam is irrelevant in this.
I don't think we are 'funding' the events in Yemen... Saudi doesn't need our money. We are supposed to be helping them target attacks (which should reduce civilian deaths) and we will be selling them arms etc.
But it is basically a war between Shias and Sunnis ...with Daesh waiting in the wings to swoop in if it gets further out of control - and they are not going to follow any UN conventions when they start against the extremist Shias ...basically its a fucking mess and the ones who suffer in all this - always are - are the people like you and me , who just want to get on with their lives in peace.
And I don't think the UK helping kill off Shia extremists - basically Daesh's enemies - is going to encourage them to send terrorists to the Europe...
Actually the whole Saudi issue is a difficult one. Really not black and white
I also watched the documentary inside Saudi on ITV -now apparently on Youtub
On one hand they are supporting the extreme form of Islam, Wahhabism, which is the basis of Daesh. On the other they are communicating with the UK government and they are supposed to be supplying us with intelligence.
Part of that documentary made a big deal that we (UK) were training their police ...but actually I can't see how that is a bad thing. They are brought to UK (get to see the outside world, a different way of living), they will be being trained in the methods used by the police in the UK .
We might find this hard to believe but our (unarmed) police are considered to be soft compared to those in many parts of the world - generally not overly violent, not racist, not corrupt - nice and honest and fair. We don't have 'secret police' who we live in fear of. I would rather their police were being trained here than in certain other parts of the world... (And wasn't some footage of an execution or something filmed undercover by a police officer in that documentary -wonder why they did that?)
And I think it might be a bit like Saddam and Gaddafi - even Assad.
'We' don't like dictators ...we don't like violence, suppression, etc etc but actually a lot of those countries are so unstable and worse we put them together after WW2, a lot of tribal groups and infighting and there is a lot of oil so money at stake (which tribe owns the oil fields?). They were what we could call barbaric in keeping order and corrupt, we might not be comfortable with that but the void left by them has been filled by worse violence and extremists.
We should never have interfered in Afghanistan in the first place (funding the Taliban against the Russians), we definitely should never have interfered in Iraq (I think Bush and Blair should be tried for war crimes) but actually I think we (the world) need Saudi to stay as it is for now ... unless we want to see worse bloodshed. I think it is (almost unbelievably) the lesser evil...

Unlucky i thought the same thing, and after seeing the prisons, again I didnt understand why we cant show then how to run prisons, ie rather than x amount of men in one room all sleeping on the floor.

The attacks in Tunisia certainly were headline news

Isis attacks in Syria are headline news or were we have heard so many that they don't hold he same interest it's the same old news

And of course we report on European news and our allies news more this because it is more of a threat to us and that makes it of interest to the general public

Anyone who has bothered to read anything about Isis know that they attack other non sunni Muslims or non Muslims in the ME

On one hand they are supporting the extreme form of Islam, Wahhabism, which is the basis of Daesh. On the other they are communicating with the UK government and they are supposed to be supplying us with intelligence

I would say they ARE wahhbaists, they ARE isis!

Maybe it would help if we all started to refer to shia extremists or whabab extremists. Make the distinction between the ordinary Muslim on the street and the terrorist types. Might take the community tension down a notch.

That meme is bullshit. All the attacks in Turkey made the headlines (including the one in Istanbul that they managed to miss off the list while criticising other people for not being aware enough of non-western terror attacks), as did Ivory Coast. All the others had high profile reporting if not the lead headline.

All that meme really tells you is that some people only pay superficial attention to the news then moan when they're not aware of stuff happening like it's someone else's fault.

It is true though that some.news items are impossible to miss, Paris, Brussels. Not so the Ivory coast attacks.
I do think it's understandable but I don't think its fair to say they are treated the same by news editors.

It is only human nature to be more interested in things that directly affect you/ are closer to home.

Shit goes on around the world every day. It would be impossible to headline everything.