Peoples' attitude to Muslim deaths...

[Sam Slater]

....generally spot on, I've found.

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bve14V-CQAET6pe.jpg:large[/img]

[David Johnson]

1. Western countries led by Britain bomb Libya to prevent Gaddafi waging all out war on Benghazi.
2. US bomb ISIS who are killing non-Sunni Muslims in sizeable numbers.
3. UK provide humanitarian aid and propose military intervention, though not "boots on the ground" to halt ISIS.

Meanwhile, let's not talk about Iraq and Afghanistan except to say that our involvement in Afghanistan has been longer than two world wars put together.

Elsewhere, UK greatly increases military support for Nigeria in their fight against Boko Haram. British troops involved in Somalia fight against al Shabaab etc. etc.

[Sam Slater]

Seems some didn't read the title of my thread, talking about 'peoples' attitudes' rather than governments' actions.

[David Johnson]

Sam, I did read the title.

I must have missed the large demonstrations in favour of not providing humanitarian aid for those who had lost everything at the hands of ISIS or demanding that there is no involvement in military airstrikes on ISIS.

Similarly, the huge demonstration against the Iraqi war that took place was driven by two things:

1. That the case for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and that British forces were in imminent danger of attack was not proven.
2. That the lot of the Iraqi people would end up being far worse with all sorts of unintended consequences.

And the "people's attitude" was correct.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Valid point Sam. I hope you are happy when Islam replaces Christianity and free speech and you are allowed to beat your wife to a pulp when she under cooks your steak...we need a wall against running from Turkey to the Baltic and start re-arming cos these lunatics will only listen to a bullet.

[Sam Slater]

People only care about Muslims deaths when Europeans or Jews are killing them. If they're killing each other it's not that big a deal.

[David Johnson]

As always, the question is much more complex. The "people" have seen that British intervention in Iraq and Libya, both made for humanitarian reasons, apart from other stated reasons, has made matters far worse. This is beyond debate.

With regard to Afghanistan, my guess would be that most "people" would expect the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate drastically when Allied troops leave.

So in "people's " view, intervention in Muslims killing Muslims whether it is Saddam gassing his own people, the Taliban executing and stoning to death adulterers, Gaddafi threatening to massacre Muslims in Benghazi is generally seen as making things far worse for Muslims rather than "it's not a big deal".

Based on the above, my guess is most "people" were against the proposed military intervention in Libya which would have involved aiding the rebels in terms of bombing raids and providing arms. Well we have seen the results of other countries providing arms haven't we? Isis being the best equipped group in the entire region.

[Sam Slater]

I think you're getting carried away, Arg.

Influence is a two way street. Lots of Muslims are pretty liberal, they just don't like speaking out because they feel like they're letting down their community and family.

That's my problem with the left on this. Rather than encourage and support liberal, progressive Muslims the left spends it's efforts defending things that is wrong with Islam or just fails to acknowledge the bad in Islam as some sort of rebuttal to the right-wing's 'everything is wrong with Islam'. It polarises opinion and that is unhelpful.

[Bob Singleton]

Ah, yet another boring and pointless argument between Cunt No 1 and Cunt No 2 where one takes 300 words to dissect a 20 word sentence written by the other, only to then have their own post dissected in the self same manner!

[David Johnson]

[img]http://cdn.meme.li/instances/400x/37294461.jpg[/img]