London Bridge is the site of a violent incident 6/3

That remains to be seen. the Tories and their media cheer-leaders have fallen back on the old accusation that Corbyn is ‘soft’ (or worse than ‘soft’) on terrorism. He recently said “Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services, have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.” He went on: “That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.” And he concluded: “But an informed understanding of the causes of terrorism is an essential part of an effective response that will protect the security of our people, that fights rather than fuels terrorism.” He summed it up — paraphrasing Blair: “Tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism.”

There are different “versions” of the “Blame Western Foreign Policy” argument. At its most primitive it implies that the terrorists act simply from a kind of Pavlovian reflex to various (especially) US-led policies, most obviously the war in Iraq. This, crudest, version plainly fails to explain much at all: most obviously, why the vast majority of Muslims, for instance, don’t, despite these foreign policy outrages, feel motivated to blow up teenagers; why often the terrorists aren’t personally from the countries affected (even in the Manchester case, it’s unclear if Salman Abedi’s action was specifically in reference to events in Libya); why the terrorists’ aims are so unspecific, even apolitical, but rather just an expression of general hatred of “the West” and a desire to inflame more hatred in response.

But there’s a much more cogent version of the argument, which is more what Corbyn seems to have had in mind. Islamic State/Daesh, for example, was formed in the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. There were many aspects to Western policy which fuelled the growth of what was to become IS, principally the utter lack of any sort of plan for what would come after the fall of Saddam, the decision to destroy the bureaucracy of the Iraqi state, driving thousands of Sunni Arabs into the arms of the jihadists, and the decision to back a Shia-sectarian government which made this worse.

To explain the growth of Islamism in Europe — either more broadly defined, or specifically the jihadi movements (the decisions by young people to go to Syria to fight, etc), one needs to look at more than “Western policy”. There are many factors at play. But for sure, as part of a wider, nuanced explanation, foreign policy, as Corbyn said, plays its part. To invoke it is not necessarily to relieve the terrorists themselves of responsibility for their own actions and Corbyn can hardly have taken greater pains to avoid this error.

However, a nuanced approach does not sit well with the right-wing media.

I've definitely read that. He reminds me of Bernie.

Thanks for that thoughtful response.

I've no idea if you consider the The Telegraph part of the UK's right-wing media or what you think about Charles Moore but just before you posted your comment I was reading this and it made sense to me

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/jeremy-corbyns-desire-dialogue-extremists-not-just-absurd-dangerous/

Corbyn may have gone to great pains to avoid relieving the terrorists of responsibility but I don't think his pain was enough. I don't presume to know the mind of the UK people but I have many business associates and friends there and while most of them might be considered conservative, the liberal ones all think Corbyn is a joke. Nothing scientific with this, but then I suspect there is nothing scientific about your views either.

He's further to the left than even Bernie.

Moreover:

Certainly there is a element of as ye sow so shall ye reap with Islamist terrorism, but nuanced solutions to homicidal maniacs killing innocents are rarely productive.

Corbyn's take on this ignores the fact that these murderous thugs want to come to power in their neck of the woods and that they kill far more of their fellow Muslims than Westerners, and so it's naive to think that their violence is only based on revenge against foreign powers. In fact, his take is really not nuanced at all.

The British public is more left than us on the whole (that's my impression), so they seem comparable to me.

That may be true, but I'm not sure it is.

Your latest post seems to have been removed. Did you delete it?

Yeah. It was sort of out of the blue. A bit removed from an idea about someone's post.

OK I saw it but couldn't believe the moderators would delete it.

Can't even recall what it was.

Back to the subject at hand:

At some point people under duress will lose their patience.

Unfortunately, when they do they tend to gather to themselves pitchforks and torches and a really pissed off attitude. It may take more time but unless these attacks are stopped, it will happen.

The Telegraph is very definitely part of the UK right-wing media. It has been called the "Torygraph" and the "house journal of the Conservative Party". I am surprised your business associates and friends haven't told you that. I assure that that there is nothing whatsoever "scientific" about my political views, although I did once consider studying political science.

It's difficult to imagine anyone more Tory than Charles Moore. He edited the Telegraph, opposes gay marriage, is vehemently anti-Islam and wrote Margaret Thatcher's official biography. He is a very right-wing old-school Tory. He writes for the Telegraph, which he used to edit, and the Spectator. He admires Trump. In August 2015, Moore received media attention and criticism after he wrote an article for The Spectator about the Labour Party leadership election, entitled "Have Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall got the looks for a leadership contest?", in which he wrote "there is an understanding that no leader - especially, despite the age of equality, a woman - can look grotesque on television and win a general election" and discussed the looks of the two female candidates in detail. The article was condemned by Liz Kendall; First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon; and Tessa Jowell, candidate for the Labour nomination for Mayor of London and former Minister and MP; along with several journalists and MPs of various parties. He wrote Thatcher's authorised biography. As you might expect, I do not like him or see anything admirable in him whatsoever.

Because I think the Telegraph and Moore are conservatives doesn't necessarily mean you do (although it was a safe bet and so I did actually have some idea). I just don't wish to make too many assumptions about what people in other lands think.

I find this puzzling. Both support the Conservative Party and are, it surely follows, conservative politically and socially. By the latter I mean, broadly, in favour of free market capitalism, free enterprise, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence, deregulation, and restrictions on trade unions.

Within the Conservative Party one can identify two distinct wings: "One Nation Conservatives" - the name comes from a famous phrase of Disraeli -Dominant until Thatcher, they believe in social cohesion, social institutions that maintain harmony between different interest groups, classes, and different races or religions. These institutions have typically included the welfare state, the BBC, and local government. Some are also supporters of the European Union, some not. They often invoke Edmund Burke and his emphasis on civil society ("little platoons") as the foundations of society, as well as his opposition to radical politics of all types. Ideologically, One Nation Conservatism identifies itself with a broad liberal conservative stance.

The other wing are the "Free Market Conservatives" who want to reduce the role of the government in the economy and support cuts in direct taxation, the privatisation of nationalised industries and a reduction in the size and scope of the welfare state. Supporters of the "free-market wing" have been labelled as "Thatcherites". The group harbours a range of social opinions from civil libertarian to traditional conservatism. Again they include Euro-sceptics and Europhiles.

Charles Moore is decidedly of the latter tendency.

I cannot see on any objective viewpoint one would not think that the Telegraph and Moore were both Conservative and conservative. I don't think anybody in Britain, of whatever political allegiance, left, centre, or right, would not think that either.

I don't disagree, I merely didn't want to assume.

I can imagine that someone who was very (very!) far to the right might see the Telegraph and Moore as being to the "left" of themselves, relatively speaking, or might say they weren't conservative enough, perhaps, but people like that are very rare indeed in Britain, and most people are inclined to view them as crackpots. If you went any distance to the right of Charles Moore, you are verging on extreme-right/fascist groupings like the British National Party who had a rally in Manchester where 30 people turned up and got chased away by a bunch of students.

Again, I didn't want to assume.

Are you going to flog me for that?

I think you may need a flogging for being too agreeable.

I was just explaining for people in general.

OK - In the future it might help if you didn't offer your general comments in a response to another member.

Hey, I'm retiring at the end of this year and I'm getting in practice for a less stress filled life.