It would be relatively simple for anyone to cause multiple deaths, with far, far worse casualties than Manchester. There is nothing we can do to prevent it, save locking everyone up. The best we can do is create an environment where people do not want to do it because they identify it is morally wrong.

Yes but are talking about real life not idealistic wonderment.

Do you think you could have talked Hitler out of doing what he did or Pol Pot or the genocide in Rwanda?

I know you like to pretend an air of intellectual superiority over anyone with liberal views with your smug, patronising tone, but don't talk such crap. The type of terrorist acts we are discussing are carried out by impressionable individuals, not the dictators who manipulate them. The most peaceful countries in the world tend to be those with stable economies, with state control over key industries, with smaller extremes in wages, with strong health & social policies, with a constructive approach to their penal systems, who don't wage wars abroad for egotistical reasons.

All military action is carried out by impressionable individuals - you do see the generals on the front line.

The most peaceful countries in the world tend to be small and insignificant - like the ones in Scandinavia - they have no influence on the world stage. They can't wage wars as they don't have the resources to fund them.

I have asked time and again show me a true Socialist country i.e. the state generates the wealth where the population are happy and relatively wealthy. I know big business is bad in your eyes but somebody has to generate the wealth to do all the touchy-feely stuff you value.

Which part of my post could possibly have been interpreted as me advocating ISIS being allowed to do whatever they want?



And I've provided you with a list of at least 5 countries who deliver the type of socialism that JC is proposing; and you failed to respond. Instead, you use the typical right wing strategy of creating a false dichotomy, then arguing against the position that you pretend your opponents have taken... For clarity - I don't see anyone proposing a text book socialist model, so you can save your typing fingers arguing against it.

You are saying we should not get involved don't bomb these types of groups - so that suggests as long as it isn't happening here its OK they can do they want.

I been back through this thread and you haven't listed one country - so let's try again. Just give one country where they have this narrower gap on incomes.

1. No it doesn't - it suggests that we should rethink our foreign policy, which most experts and even some Tories (although they deny each others meaning after the fact when it's convenient) agree has provided motivation and opportunity for terrorists to recruit people.

2. I listed Finland, Sweden Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands as countries which practice a form of collectivism that is closely related to socialism; and one could include Canada and China on that list - not pure, textbook socialism, which I accept doesn't work - but a model that has capitalism, with strong socialist programmes, co-existing quite comfortably.

Cue deluded Little Englanders bleating about the insignificance of some of these places on the world stage - forgetting of course that we just Brexited ourselves into a similarly insignificant status. Great places to live though, for the most part.

I'm pretty certain by the response to what happened that we live in an environment that knows bombing and killing innocent people is wrong. People say we should go about our lives as normal but then again are we having to tiptoe around and make sure we don't do anything that could possibly offend anybody, contradictory much. You can stop bombing overseas, you can be as nice and welcoming to minorities as possible and you'll still the likes of ISIS trying to kill and bomb us because they simply hate the West and they'll find reasons for still doing it. I agree with others, the country has to get tougher, that's not giving into hate, that's trying to protect the people of Britain.

The GDP of the UK is bigger than 5 of the countries you mentioned combined. The UK has the 5/6th largest economy in the world it has influence inside or outside of the EU. It could be argued that it has great influence outside as the EU appears to spouting policies/agendas that suit the Germans and the French.

France has been targeted more than most by these attacks - their military intervention is nothing like that of the US influenced UK so that would indicate that its far more complex than us going into Iraq/Libya etc.

Perhaps if we hadn't opened our doors to all and sundry like the family of the Manchester bomber then perhaps these events might be more controllable?

This is where you get the point mixed up. We aren't being attacked in revenge for bombing. It's that our clumsy and ill thought out interventions have created power vacuums, poverty and misery in these areas, which make people in the area susceptible to extremists.

All they have to do is convince people with nothing to lose to fight for their cause, blame the west for all their woes and offer them a bit of security. Even easier for them in areas with such low levels of education.

No one is suggesting letting Isis roam around as they please, but cracking down on the overwhelmingly innocent muslim community in the UK (who reported the bomber to authorities several times) is not the answer. Integration is a 2 way street.