London Bombing
It now seems beyond question that my home town has been targetted by most likely islamic extremeists with a series of bombs on the underground and busses. The same ones I take nearly every day. I was lucky enough not to be in london at the time and thankfully I've managed to get in contact with most of my friends and everyone has so far, been ok.
I hope they hunt down and punish the dirty sons of bitches that did this without sacrificing the liberties that they hate so deeply, I hope the G8 summit still goes ahead and achieves something towards tackling the real problems in the world today and I hope that everyone you know in London is ok.
also - everyone I've spoken to says the emergency services have done an amazing job getting the situation under control quickly and cleanly.
edit - added emphasis, i can't quite express the anger or the sense of helplessness.
I was going to ask you to check in man.
I hate this I hate this I hate this I hate this I hate this :rar:
"Our desire to protect our way of life is stronger than their determination to destroy it."
Probably paraphrased, a visibly shaken Tony Blair.
I'm hearing about a second wave of bombings including leister square & something at canary warf, if you are in or know anyone inside the square mile get inside or get the fuck out.
Belmont Club:
These coordinated attacks are, technically speaking, at far higher level of sophistication than the Madrid attacks of 3/11 which involved a single train. The attack on London was a "time on target" attack which required simultaneity so that one incident did not compromise the subsequent. By implication the personnel involved received some degree of training and planned the operation in sufficient secrecy to prevent British security services from getting wind of it. The six attacks probably mean that a minimum of forty persons were involved, if those in support roles are included. The attackers must have an egress plan or access to safe houses where they can weather the inevitable crackdown.
But the good side of it:
Additional reports from the BBC suggest that the number of casualties will be comparatively small. From the amount of damage caused, the explosive devices used appear to have been in the tens, rather than the hundreds of pounds. This is good news. It also means that the enemy has not grown in overall capability since the days of 9/11 and 3/11.
Blair's full statement:
It is important that those who engage in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction and impose extremism on the world. They will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear.
Glad you are alright Jaguar. I was thinking of you as I heard this on the radio this AM. Hope everyone close to you is OK too.
I know exactly what you mean about the feelings of anger and helplessness.
In the DC metrorail system this morning, they are running more announcements than usual asking passengers to keep an eye out for suspicious activity and abandonded packages, etc. No hightened police presence though.
ditto here jag, now i do have a question...where is the lake district? today is the 6th and NBN is there......
Glad you're okay Jag - just read that Blair left the G-8 conference and is on his way home.
London bombing...islamic (lower case on purpose) group claims responsibility...hmmm, what a shock. Every hot spot, every bit of mass violence seems to involve our "friends" the muslims. I'm am sick to death of it, not that it matters. I can not comprehend a religion that advicates death and distruction when dealing with intollerance. Encourages the systematic destruction of Gods one greatest gift, human life by strapping on a bomb and blowing themselves up killing inocent men, women, and childern. This is not a religion, it is a cult. They claim allah, god is telling them, directing them to kill all those who don't agree with their way of thinking, I can not wrap my mind around that concept at all. My God, directs kindness, mercy, grace. True, my God once told Saul to kill all the Amalikites, every man woman and child, but that was old testiment, that was the old God. I have no repect for the muslim faith at all. There are those who claim that islam is not violence and hate, BS. Prove it! Those who make those claims (who out number the ones who don't) refuse to do anything to stop this mentality for... well for fear that they too will become targets.
Today London, Iraq, Spain. Tomarrow, New York, Seattle, Phoenix. It's only a matter of time folks. 300 dead mostly childern, in coordinated theme park attacks. muslim extremeist claim responisbility. I can see as plain as day.
The bottom line is this...those nations who embrace islam are about 1000 years behind the times. Because of this mentality, they are impoverished, jobless, opressed, and miserable. The young who are angry are looking to blame someone. The easiest target? Anyone but them. This war against terroristism will never be won the way we are going right now. The only way it will stop is from within the islamic religion itself. The muslim pople
themselves have to stop it, they have to
want to stop it. It's like the war on drugs, it will never be won with conventional means. But if they don't, there is one other way that will eventually come into play, and that is when the entire world gets tired of the sensless violence and turns completely on the muslim nations to drive them out. I, personally don't advocate this path, so just calm down everyone, however, I see it as enevitible. It's on the horizon...it's only a matter of time. It's human nature.
This concludes our rant session for today.
I say we throw them all in FootX3's handbasket.............
(Just got a call from my friends in London saying they're okay - wonder if they can catch their plane back to the states tomorrow?)
Jaguar... I'm glad you're okay. I thought of you as I read the paper this morning.
I'm shocked, dismayed, horrified, angry and I hope that that whoever did this is caught and receives a severe punishment. Who cares about fair and just punishments right now, I'm so upset by this. Many of these areas where bombings occured are areas where I frequented when I lived there. While my stay was rather short, I do consider London home in some ways. :( :bawling:
Ferret out the murderers and the wannabe murderers, trap them, hit them. Mafia style.
There are those who claim that islam is not violence and hate, BS. Prove it! Those who make those claims (who out number the ones who don't) refuse to do anything to stop this mentality for... well for fear that they too will become targets.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm">Muslim leaders condemn attacks</a> (BBC)
<a href="http://www.mcb.org.uk/home.php">Muslim Council of Britain "utterly condemns today's indiscriminate acts of terror"</a>
If you want additional pounds of flesh, you can collect them yourself.
The problem is not the religion, but the acts carried out and beliefs held by extremists "in its name." The perpetrators of today's actions have as much in common with mainstream Islam as Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have with mainstream Christianity.
BBC is now reporting 30 dead from the explosions.
BBC Newshow many more will have to die before the rest of the world finally sees these people for what they are and what they represent? i'm sorry about your town, jag. we have a common enemy, if nothing else. here's to the heroes of Britain, who will rise up just as ours did after 9/11.
how many more will have to die before the rest of the world finally sees these people for what they are and what they represent?
Define "these people" and do it carefully.
Jaguar - thanks for posting, i'm glad to hear you are safe. DanaC doesn't check in much anymore, but i hope she does sometime soon.
Hobbs- it is an extremely rare event when i agree with VSP, but this is one of those times. these attacks weren't carried out by "muslims", "islam", "allah", etc. Islamic Extremists (most likely al quaeda) who distort the islamic faith through their twisted view of how the world should be chose to kill people. they have little in common with the millions of everyday muslims who woke up and were disgusted by the news just as you were today.
I am a Christian. the guy who was killing abortion doctors called himself a christian. i prefer not to be lumped in with his homicidal stupidity.
One of my friends is mormon. he prefers not to be lumped in with the polygamist, incestuous fools in colorodo city, AZ.
Wolf is a pagan. she prefers not to... sorry my ignorance of her faith prevents me from carrying this to the end.
the point is that for evey religion or philosophy there are going to be people that will twist and distort it to fit their political or social view of the world. we can't fall into the trap of hating "muslims" because some shitbags from a virulent strain of that faith feel it necessary to go around killing innocent civilians. that would be just as ridiculous as a non-american hating all americans because we are wealthy capitalists raping the world for our entertainment. stereotypes are bad, mmkay?
that being said, my views from the past haven't changed. we should hunt down those involved in this and fuck them up. the problem is that they expect to be hunted down and killed, it is part of their plan to create a global revolution against those they oppose. in the end a decision will have to be made - are attacks like these crimes? or are they acts of war?
if they are crimes then we can only respond by searching for those that were involved, charge, convict, and punish them within the justice system. rule of law and all that jazz, you know?
if these are acts of war, then game on. you hunt them down, you kill them. people who choose to associate with them? kill them too. someone gives them safe harbor? kill them. at some point in time they will all be dead and no one will like the odds of rising up in their place. of course, there are problems inherent in that solution, too.
It could be worse. At least they're English. j/k
Seriously though, I highly doubt this attack would have occurred if it weren't for Bush going to the UK and for the UK supporting Bush in his outrageous, insane, and unconstitutional war of aggression in Iraq which has no legitimate justification.
That being said, I still hope they find those responsible and hang them up by their short and curlies, or just let the families of those they killed beat them to death with baseball bats.
Define "these people" and do it carefully.
Instead, I'll let you guess. Here's a hint: they're the ones blowing shit up.
One of the freedoms they want to take away is your right to automatically side with the people who are attacking you and your allies. You should be worried, too. Why is there always SOMEone who wants to turn the spotlight around on political correctness instead of the really bad things that are happening in the world?
Instead, I'll let you guess. Here's a hint: they're the ones blowing shit up.
Then your previous comment is inane, as the vast majority of the rest of the world _does_ view people who blow up commuter vehicles as being ignorant, mass-murdering fuckwit criminals, which is what they are and what they represent.
But thanks for playing.
So if you knew who I was talking about, and agreed, was there any point to the wholly inappropriate, confrontational tone of your post? Other than to get someone to say something you could label "racist" and have a knee-jerk leftist orgasm over?
Everybody needs to see this movie.
"Muslims" are no more responsible for today's horror than "Christians" are for shooting abortion clinic doctors.
It's about individuals, not groups.
thank you Wolf. (you PAGAN, you. :lol: )
But since the topic has come up, here's your racist comment (go get the vibrator first, I'll wait).
Islamic terrorists are the enemy. Sorry wolf, the word "Islamic" cannot be separated from "terrorist" because the religion is not one of peace -- it's one of warfare, murder, cowardice and hatred. You who are so quick to attribute these things to Christianity...why are you so afraid to do the same for Islam? I know there are huge numbers of muslims who are not guilty of murder and who would never consider the act (or would they?) But they follow a religion that is almost totally dedicated to the eradication of Jews and Christians, and has never hidden the fact. Sure, thugs have appropriated it for their own murderous agendas, but that doesn't mean that the original agenda wasn't equally disgusting.
People who quote Leviticus and the harsh punishments for sin in the old testament refuse to quote the same passages in the koran.
You want to eliminate Christianity from public places, but turn your head when Islamic-rooted hatred actually results in the deaths of thousands. You don't want to take the fight to the enemy, you want to take them to court and put them in therapy to deal with their anger-management issues. Watchdogs constantly go to Gitmo to make sure the air conditioners are at the right setting, while the occupants plot new ways to get bombs on your busses, your planes, in your neighborhoods. People are so fucking blind.
So if you knew who I was talking about, and agreed, was there any point to the wholly inappropriate, confrontational tone of your post? Other than to get someone to say something you could label "racist" and have a knee-jerk leftist orgasm over?
If I knew who you were talking about in your vague generalization of "these people," I wouldn't have asked for clarification, which should be fucking obvious. Your statement made no sense with the least objectionable interpretation ("these people" == today's bombers), and if you were casting your net wider than that intentionally, I'd just as soon see you state that explicitly before calling you an asshole for doing so.
We've already had one "Islam and its followers are evil" yutz in this thread, and whether or not you're #2 is up to you. Referring to me as "siding with the attackers" makes you a gold-plated shithead, but there's still plenty of wiggle room as to what additional kinds of shithead you may be. By all means, continue digging your hole.
EDIT: Ah, I see you didn't disappoint. Bravo!
I suppose it was the fucking Norwegian Bikini Team that's been doing all this, then?
I don't want to fight with people on this forum, really. I was trying to show support for jag (!) and the people who were attacked, and as usual, someone turned it into an orgy of PC self righteousness.
I understand turning the other cheek. But at some point you have to look at WHO IS DOING THE KILLING. The people you wish to embrace are plotting your death right this minute. When will you see? They don't want to be your damn friends. They don't want your compassion, they don't care whether you go to bat for them against the old mean Republicans. They want your body blown to shreds for Allah.
no, it was A FEW SELECT EXTREMISTS who warp the name of Islam by using it as an excuse for their atrocious actions. Repeat after me: NOT ALL ISLAMISTS / MUSLIMS ARE MURDERING WACKOS - JUST A FEW WHO GIVE THE REST A BAD NAME. got it? good. class dismissed.
I suppose some people here are dimwitted enough that I need to say:
"NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD"
fucking A.
You actually think I'm full of hate and ignorant right-wing propoganda, don't you? You actually think that I get off on people dying. Retards. If the Muslims wanted their religion to be one of peace, they would take it back from the people who are running it now. They don't, so they won't.
It is not a handful of extremists. It's the party line.
I'm going to have a stroke. Chill time. I get mad at the bastards waging war on our country, and everyone else gets mad at the people who get mad.
But they follow a religion that is almost totally dedicated to the eradication of Jews and Christians, and has never hidden the fact
that isn't true mrnoodle. in the earliest days of Islam, not only did the islamic tribes co-exist with the jewish community, they provided protection. jews and christians are referred to as "people of the book" in the earliest islamic teachings. that means that they worshipped the same God, but had strayed in the specifics of the faith.
it wasn't until later that treachery created a deep chasm in islamic/jewish/christian relationships.
INDIVIDUALS perverted, and continue to pervert, the islamic faith. INDIVIDUALS perverted, and continue to pervert, the christian faith.
quit getting so wrapped up in "muslims are bad, evil people". focus instead on the fact that many people are bad, evil creatures. some of these happen to use religion as their rallying point so that they can gather sheep to their murderous flock. the average muslim/christian/jew isn't sitting in their basement working on a dirty bomb. they are going about their daily lives doin the best they know how to do, trying to keep their families safe from the scum and villainy that has, and always will, plague humanity under different names.
if we allow paranoia and hate to make us see a terrorist behind every muslim, then they have won, we have lost and the world is just waiting for it to become official.
hunt down and destroy the guilty. don't disparage the innocent. don't allow righteous anger to twist into blind hate, otherwise you become that which you oppose.
I guess I know that on some level.
But I'm scared, because a large chunk of the world wants me dead. And whether or not the original intent of Islam was good or evil, we see what it has become. Arafat was a demi-god. bin Laden is a rock star. al Jazeera lies, and people hang on its every word.
Who the hell are we supposed to be profiling here? If you go to Iran, and scratch any muslim, underneath you are likely to find...if not a terrorist, someone who believes what the terrorists are doing is just.
That's just the way it is. Our view is colored by the fact that we live in a tolerant state. We just can't imagine that a whole people would want us dead. But most of em do. They just do. I didn't make it up.
I understand turning the other cheek. But at some point you have to look at WHO IS DOING THE KILLING. The people you wish to embrace are plotting your death right this minute. When will you see? They don't want to be your damn friends. They don't want your compassion, they don't care whether you go to bat for them against the old mean Republicans. They want your body blown to shreds for Allah.
[SIZE=7]NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.[/SIZE]
Believe it or not, if I flip over my ACLU card it doesn't read "Al-Qaeda Supporters' Club Local #405" on the back. My support or lack thereof for Dubya, his war and his agenda wouldn't mean a flying fuck to J. Random Terrorist; if I'm in the wrong bus or plane or building or block at the wrong time when something happens, I'll be just as dead of a motherfucker as if I'd been screaming "ALLAH AKBAR" when it went down. The people who are enabling and encouraging violent actions are sick and disturbed and need to be taken down hard. If they catch those responsible for today's bombings and hang bits of them on Nelson's Column, I won't complain one bit.
There's the key phrase: "those responsible." Islam is not responsible. Iraq is not responsible. Iran is not responsible. The Middle East in general is not responsible. The Muslims of the world are not responsible. An organized group of violent assholes is responsible. That group is at whom I direct my venom, not at those around them who share nothing with them except geographic proximity or a common religion.
I may disagree with Lookout regarding how to _rectify_ the situation and seek to avoid future attacks, but at least he and I both put the emphasis on "terrorist" and not on "Islamic." Failure to condemn Islam and its proponents does not constitute "turning the other cheek" or "embracing the attackers," and fuck you very much for suggesting such. If you feel that a "drive the Muslims into the sea" response is more appropriate, that's your business, but the truth is so far away that you can't even see it from there.
Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, or any other religion. Islam does not teach hate anymore than Christianity does. Those who claim such only prove their ignorance of the subject.
This has nothing to do with Islam and has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy and sticking our noses into areas where it doesn't belong. It has to do with the U.S. invading nations that never posed a threat to America and murdering hundreds of thousands of people, and trying to force a government of our choosing on them. It has to do with decades of U.S. intervention resulting in millions dying in the middle-east.
The U.S. is not a Christian Nation, it's not a Muslim Nation, it's not a Jewish nation, etc. and it's about time the morons out there trying to spread U.S. Policy abroad got that through their thick skulls.
For the record there have been at least 100 Muslims murdered by Christians for every Christian murdered by a Muslim.
[QUOTE=vsp]
There's the key phrase: "those responsible." Islam is not responsible. Iraq is not responsible. Iran is not responsible. The Middle East in general is not responsible. The Muslims of the world are not responsible. An organized group of violent assholes is responsible. That group is at whom I direct my venom, not at those around them who share nothing with them except geographic proximity or a common religion.
[QUOTE]
what you said. sorry if I misunderstood you noodle - I agree. terrorists are bad. they need to go bye bye. okay, I'm done now. back to you.
What these particular murderers do have is a powerful weapon in their religious perversion. It provides them human ammo, their sense of justification, and a mutated PR hook. So how do you promote Islamic moderation and squelch the extreemist expressions? What gets often dissed as wimp ass "therapy" is actually an important tactic here. I'm not saying you shouldnt fight back strong, take out the murderers, but fight smart, on lots of fronts. its not war vs police, its war and police and intelligence and economics and media and politics and global will and...
First, let me apologize for calling names. It's dumb.
Secondly, let me reiterate that I don't hate anyone. Nor do I think that all muslims should be eradicated (although they feel we should).
But the sooner we realize that we are ALL targets, and 9/10 muslims in ANY part of the world wouldn't so much as shed a tear at our death, the safer we will be.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to get you. I can see this kind of reaction after Pearl Harbor.... "hey now, let's not become hateful, like the handful of extremists who bombed our military base. What did the president do to make them mad and CAUSE them to do this?"
maybe your mistake is in believing that most of the people you meet on a daily basis aren't of the very same nature. if you scratch the surface of the average american, do they wish death or at least a bad case of athlete's foot upon someone? i think you might be surprised.
there are some rabid "kill all the dark skins" types, that we choose to ignore. there are more vocal "kill the muslim" types, even more "kill the muslim extremist" types, and so on. we are people. people across the globe aren't all that different.
and "profiling"? i don't know that we should be profiling anyone. be aware of everything around you. be aware of the people around you. is that guy with the dark skin a friendly siek or a rabid wahabbist with a stick of TNT jammed up his rectum? what about that white guy? is he an accountant moving into a new home, or is he a nutjob with a van loaded with explosives intended for a government building?
be aware. be wary. don't be paranoid.
whole people would want us dead. But most of em do
no they don't. they don't know you or give a damn about me. they are living their lives. a bunch of people want a bunch of other people dead. the trick is to separate those with ill intentions from the rest, and that is impossible if you think they are all the same.
if that's true, where's the outcry from the muslim rank and file? where are the blogs, the radio and TV interviews, the books and magazine articles from muslims denouncing the killing?
First, let me apologize for calling names. It's dumb.
Fair enough.
But the sooner we realize that we are ALL targets
And we always have been.
Most of us here in America were somewhat sheltered from the realities of terrorism before 9/11, and it was such a rude wake-up call that I suppose I can't blame people for still being freaked out. However, I don't think there's a square inch of turf in the world that could truly be considered "safe," unless it's out in the middle of some Aborigine plateau that few people even know exists, but where the spiders and snakes are more likely to get you than anything else.
Some clips from today's British blogs, snitched from another site:
There has been a widespread outbreak of grumbling and tutting today in London, along with a large number of people going home instead of to work, with a certain amount of guilty pleasure.
Sorry, bad guys. We've been bombed before, and we just adjust our day to account for it. This is London calling.
Ooh. I shoul dswitch Fox News on...
Yep. Far more dramatic. If I'd ben watching this on its own, I'd be convinced that the whole of London was a crater.
And it's taken 30 seconds to link it to Iraq and a war on Christianity. Good going, Fox!
Did Londoners still react differently to New Yorkers? Yes, they evidently did. Culturally, we are very different cities. Londoners are proud of their strength and resilience in a crisis, and they're going to talk about it. It is distasteful, perhaps, to compare it to New York, but that too can be blamed on our thick skin and black humour. This is our response. We don't weep in the street. We make a cup of tea and say something wry and tasteless.
This is life in our modern world. We are humans; we adapt. Doesn't mean that we have to like it or sit back and take it when people do awful things, doesn't mean that those responsible shouldn't pay for their crimes, but let's not act like this is some kind of new 21st-century phenomenon.
and 9/10 muslims in ANY part of the world wouldn't so much as shed a tear at our death
See, you could yell that into my ear for the next ten years and you still wouldn't be reaching me.
A lot of Americans hate Iraq/Iran/etc. because they're convinced that they hate us and would like to see us dead.
A lot of Iraqis/Iranians/etc. hate Americans because they're convinced that Americans hate them and would like to see them dead.
Think about that for a minute. Sounds like a self-perpetuating fallacy on both sides, doesn't it?
I strongly recommend actually reading The Koran.
It's not what we're all told it is, you know ... most of the Evil Rhetoric™ that we hear about is the result of exortations of individual clerics and sects.
The Book itself is pretty mild. Occasional smitings by God, relatively few exhortations to smite, and clear indications that there should be good relations with Jews and Christians.
Of course, I could have read the "watered down for better PR edition." I did buy it after 9-11.
This is horrible, horrible news. In addition to the dead, 700 people were injured. I am so glad Jag is okay. I beleive that DanaC lives in the English countryside somewhere, so she should be OK unless she chanced to visit London that day. My heart goes out to the people of the UK.
We cannot hate the people of any given faith just because of the actions of some extremist element. The families of innocent civilians killed in Iraq hate all Christians. The people of the Western World hate all Muslims. Such blanket hatred is only a recipe for more attacks and more deaths of innocents.
The mistake, if it is indeed a mistake, of the Bush administration is that they have not gone after Bin Laden. The conflict in Iraq has become a quagmire with no real purpose that I can see other than to secure our interests in oil supplies from the Mid East. In the process, we are only sowing more hatred for the West in the Muslim world. Terrorist attacks such as the one in London are the result.
I very much hope the authorities in the UK track down every last person who had responsibility for what happened in London today. The UK doesn't have the death penalty, so I hope they all end up in a maximum security prison for life with few amenities. I have no sympathy for ANY group which commits acts that lead to the deaths of children and women and male non combatants. People who carry out such atrocities should be dealt with no mercy.
self-perpetuating, obviously. Fallacy? Ask the people in the back half of that bus. For every muslim that publicly supports freedom and peace, there are 40,000 in the town square chanting "death to america"
while we sit in our comfy flats and houses and delude ourselves into thinking that they either don't really mean it, or are talking about someone else. we have become so numb from our pampered lifestyles that we don't recognize the real danger anymore. We lack vigilance. in a week, no one will even look over their shoulder while riding the tube. it's just too comforting to think that these events are random, rather than a systematic eradication of your values, your safety, and your freedom. If you want to know who is on which side, look at the faces in the crowd at the next 'death to whoever' rally. they're avid, fanatic, and glowing with pride over the actions of this "small but well organized" movement.
I strongly recommend actually reading The Koran.
It's not what we're all told it is, you know ... most of the Evil Rhetoric™ that we hear about is the result of exortations of individual clerics and sects.
The Book itself is pretty mild. Occasional smitings by God, relatively few exhortations to smite, and clear indications that there should be good relations with Jews and Christians.
Of course, I could have read the "watered down for better PR edition." I did buy it after 9-11.
I bought a copy when a girl I know was set to marry a muslim guy. We were trying to talk her out of it (he wanted her to wear a burka, didn't let her go out with friends, etc.), but she said the same thing -- "It's not what you think, read the book."
So I did. When I get home, I'll pull it out and read the passages again. But they were straightforward and left no room for doubt. And they commanded the followers of Mohammed to declare jihad on anyone who didn't follow Islam. Straight out.
if that's true, where's the outcry from the muslim rank and file? where are the blogs, the radio and TV interviews, the books and magazine articles from muslims denouncing the killing?
i think i've been pretty clear about my own faith in the cellar. i'm a Christian. one of those "double belly button types" and whatever you want to call us. so keep that in mind here.
if christians don't support blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors where was the outcry from the christian rank and file? where are the blogs, the radio and TV interviews, the books and magazine articles from christians denouncing the killing?
we live in a society that is full of small c christians so when a "christian activist" kills a doctor, or taunts an abortion patient we look at them and say "look at that stupid, asshat, activist." and then we groan at the ribbing we will get from those that like to ridicule christianity on the basis of an individual's actions. when a dumbass tv evangelist announces that FL will be destroyed because of our decadent society's acceptance of homosexuality, we don't call the newspaper for an interview, or hold a protest to clarify what most christians think. we turn the channel, roll our eyes and wait for the idiot to die and the whole thing to blow over.
these people live in a society that is 99% muslim. when a "muslim extremist" blows something or someone up they say "look at that stupid, asshat, exremist." and then they grimace at the way the rest of the world will look at them the next day. when a cleric calls for "death to all ____" they... see where i am going here?
keep things in context.
I'll stick with "Islamofascism" as a term for the school of thought. It is connected to hard-line Islam and is distinctly fascist in nature, even connected in schools of thought and insane hatred for the evil Other.
self-perpetuating, obviously. Fallacy? Ask the people in the back half of that bus.
1. Today's terrorists killed the bus riders.
2. The terrorists are self-identifying Muslims.
3. Generally speaking, Muslims want to kill the bus riders and people like them.
...
1. Eric Rudolph bombed abortion clinics.
2. Eric Rudolph was a self-identifying Christian.
3. Generally speaking, Christians want to bomb abortion clinics.
Still want to follow that line of logic?
Fortune
a writer for Fortune magazine was on a bus a few minutes behind on that exploded. here is his quick story. nothing breathtaking or sensational, just a quick article by someone who was there and who coincidentally lived in NY on 9/11.
For the record there have been at least 100 Muslims murdered by Christians for every Christian murdered by a Muslim.
Citation please?
c'mon Dar you should know that 87.63% of all statistics in the cellar are made of whole cloth.
But the sooner we realize that we are ALL targets, and 9/10 muslims in ANY part of the world wouldn't so much as shed a tear at our death, the safer we will be.
Be honest. You pulled that number out of ... thin air didn't you?
Does anyone know of any polls that have been done in the last five years of Near East/Mediterranean Muslims as to pro/anti American leanings? If we don't have at least some rough numbers for Iraq, how can we hope to know how much effort it's going to take to find closure there?
Citation please?
Crusades + 2 wars in Iraq + Afghanistan + putting people like Saddam, Khadafi, etc. in power, training Bin Laden, arming Israel = far more Muslims than any Christians killed in the WTC bombings, other bombings, etc.
Lookout's comments about statistics got me to checking and I discovered a very cool site with all kinds of statistics from a variety of sources, "Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century"
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm
Here's a sample from some of the most recent Mid East wars and conflicts:
Gulf War:
The US lost 147 killed in battle and 289 dead otherwise. The other Coalition members lost 92 dead.
Shortly after the war, the US Defense Intelligence Agency made a very rough estimate of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and this order of magnitude is widely accepted.
So that's 528 of "us" versus 100,000 of "them" according to the bleeding hearts over at the Defense Intellience Agency. Comes out to 200 of them for every 1 of us.
Afganistan/Soviet Invasion
Britannica Annual (1994): 1,500,000 Afganistan combatants plus civilians
(20 May 88 Chicago Tribune) Soviet deaths: 12-15,000 killed
100 of them for every 1 Soviet
Iraq Invasion
ESTIMATED TOTAL KILLED (12 June 2005)
USA, Coalition and contractors: 2,131 (ICasualties.Org)
Iraqi military during invasion: 7,600-13,500 (Proj. Def. Alt., NY Post, Guardian)
Iraqi insurgents: 10,000-15,000 (CNN)
Iraqi security forces, post-invasion: 1,300-2,267 (NY Times, CNN, ICasualties.Org) Civilians: 22,248-25,229 (Iraq Body Count)
I used a middle number from each estimate to come up with a conservative total of 52,131 Iraqi dead as of June. This does not take into account the high number of deaths due to the UN embargo during Saddam's regime.
So an extremely conservative 25 of them for every 1 of us.
You know, when it comes to killing, the West does seem to be doing a pretty good job.
Radar may have grabbed his statistic out of the air, but he does seem to be good at catching fly balls.
Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I just wanted to say I am glad to hear you are okay, Jag. When I heard about this I wondered. My thoughts are with you, and those close to you for your feelings of anger and helplessness. May you heal expediently from the emotional damage this sort of thing causes.
In light of the current tangent, crazies come in all shapes, sizes, colors and religious flavors. I have met many Muslims who aren't extremists and don't have the mindset so many of these attacks personify. I have met Christians that don't believe it is right to blow up an abortion clinic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Iraqi Security Forces aren't being killed by our occupation forces - they're being killed by insurgents because they are perceived by the insurgents as being traitors/American pawns.
Technically you should take those numbers out of the last set of equations, thus proving that either we are being more careful this time out, or our efficieny is dropping terribly.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Iraqi Security Forces aren't being killed by our occupation forces - they're being killed by insurgents because they are perceived by the insurgents as being traitors/American pawns.
Technically you should take those numbers out of the last set of equations, thus proving that either we are being more careful this time out, or our efficieny is dropping terribly.
In theory, no, Security Forces aren't being killed by us except maybe a case of mistaken idenity here or there. Still, they wouldn't be getting killed at all but for the war and they ARE MUSLIM deaths.
Your point is valid enough, though. The ratio remains about the same without those 2 or 3 thousand, so we can leave them off if you wish.
We also have to add the 200,000 who were bombed for 12 years straight, starved, and kept from life saving medicines between the 2 gulf wars.
We also have to add the 200,000 who were bombed for 12 years straight, starved, and kept from life saving medicines between the 2 gulf wars.
Oh, my little sampling was far from a complete one. I imagine if someone had the time to wade through every last statistic on that site the overall ratio would be more like 300 to 1.
Anyone with the time and energy is welcome to correct my perception if its too far off base.
We also have to add the 200,000 who were bombed for 12 years straight, starved, and kept from life saving medicines between the 2 gulf wars.
because Lord knows their leadership had nothing at all to do with that.
because Lord knows their leadership had nothing at all to do with that.
And our leadership wouldn't either! :eyebrow:
See? NOW we're back to the <u>normal</u> crapola. All is well. :cool:
uh, Marichiko - you start a war, you lose a war, you face the consequences. if you didn't learn your lesson, the consequences are more severe and last longer.
uh, Marichiko - you start a war, you lose a war, you face the consequences. if you didn't learn your lesson, the consequences are more severe and last longer.
Yer Mamma wears combat boots! :p
In all due seriousness, a discussion of THAT aspect of things requires far more energy and thought that I'm willing to lend to the debate at the moment. You're welcome to start a whole new thread on that issue, though, and I'll most likely respond to it! ;)
Allow me to clarify...
I don't think that all muslims are terrorists, just like I don't think that all Irish Catholics are IRA, or South Americans are a part of the drug cartel. What I was trying to state is that the majority of violent acts around the world right now are headed by people embracing islam. We see violence in Iraq, Palastine, Isreal with rock throwing, bombs, RPG, etc. What we don't see, and this is one part I agree with mrnoodle, is the tens of thousands of muslims marching in the streets to take back the good name of islam. What we don't see is people ratting out their neigbors because they are busy making car bombs in the garage. What we don't see is a very loud voice of the muslim imams denouncing the violence. This to us in the U.S. paints a very grim picture of islam. It's all we have to go on. I will restate for the record though, this so called "war on terrorism" is not a winable one if we follow the road we are traveling right now. It has to be a change of mind-set among all muslims. Violence will do nothing but insight more attacks.
Well, I think it's a moral and tactical mistake to declare war on
1.3 billion people based on the actions of thousands or even tens of thousands. This was why I cringed when GWB used the
crusade term after 9/11. 'Crusade' is as loaded a term for a Christian as 'jihad' is for a Muslim. His remarks probably had an upward effect on Jihad recruitment.
Basically, the response to terrorism is to let everyone know that there is no time limit on how long we will spend to track down those actually responsible. The Israelis went to a lot of effort to track down the Munich Olympic terrorists and
killed 8 out of 11 with no 'collateral damage'. In doing so they made their point.
So far, we have invaded the wrong country and tied down 130,000 troops next door to where Al Queda was actually operating. We have incarcerated and sometimes 'strenuously questioned' thousands of terror suspects. However, we have had mixed results in shutting down actual terror cells in Europe and the U.S. Our intelligence does not have the experience with 'wars on terror' that the Israelis do.
I stayed up till 1am this morning waitin hear i fmy brother was ok, he moved to London not three months ago, and was trapped down in the tunnell at Kings cross Station, his train was right behind another that was involved in the explosion i believe. He is ok now, very rattled.. but ok.
I have already lost one brother within the last 18 months, i didnt want to loose my only one left to some fucked up, selfish and totally wrong, i dont know what it is.. cult?
They have no right to interfere with our lives like this. i cant explain the helpless, horrible feeling in my guts last night.
there is no god.
...there is no god.
I'm glad you brother is OK, that has to be very frightening for you and your family. Sun, this is not God's work, but the work of the evil one himself. This has his fingerprints written all over it. I realize it is easy to blame God and his absence in justice and protection, but not everything of this world is of God. He is like our own parents, our own father. He wishes to protect us from all harm keep us safe, however, some things just slip by him. I know this sounds lame and weak.
As a native Londoner who moved out to the West coast a few years ago I am so proud of my fellow Londoners. I was working in Cambridge this week and left there yesterday morning to travel home by train via Kings Cross in North London. I would have gone on from there to join the tube to Paddington via Edgware Road. The explosions meant I reached Kings Cross Station but was prevented by police from going any further, instead joined the hundreds diverted away from the station on foot. Thankfully I didn't hop on one of the buses being used to take people out of the area, it blew up a few hundred yards down the road. I heard it and just kept walking away away away. It finally took me eleven hours to reach home via Birmingham, a journey which should have taken about five, but I did reach home safely.
More than sixty years ago Adolf learned that the people of London could not be bombed into submission, a lesson the IRA entirely failed to grasp and they took almost thirty years to give up and go play in their own back yard. Living in a city used by every facist pig terrorist from every part of the world as a stage for their own foul game breeds a total contempt for these shits, not fear, not ever. I am nervous but I will be back there next week to lecture staff at Holloway in North London because we don't let fear win do we. No.
I saw people of every colour and creed yesterday, managing their fears and helping each other deal with the events they had either witnessed or been a part of. I can go walking on my beach this morning and 'god' has nothing to do with that, I was one of the lucky ones.
because Lord knows their leadership had nothing at all to do with that.
You got that right. They were attacked by America for 12 straight years without legitimate cause. They never posed a threat to America. And an invasion of Kuwait (which used to be part of Iraq) has nothing to do with America. The U.S. Military is only here to defend America. Not oil supplies, not allies, not anything other than defending against direct attacks on American soils and ships.
Thankfully I didn't hop on one of the buses being used to take people out of the area, it blew up a few hundred yards down the road. I heard it and just kept walking away away away.
...
I was one of the lucky ones.
Glad you are safe. Thanks for checking in. I had no idea you were in London.
I wonder how Catwoman is? Haven't heard from her in months. Odds are that she is fine, but you never know.
More than sixty years ago Adolf learned that the people of London could not be bombed into submission...
English people can't be hung either. They have no chins. They just slip through the noose. I was pretty shocked when I heard King's Cross was blown up. There must have been prostitute body parts all over the place.
Crusades + 2 wars in Iraq + Afghanistan + putting people like Saddam, Khadafi, etc. in power, training Bin Laden, arming Israel = far more Muslims than any Christians killed in the WTC bombings, other bombings, etc.
Oh yeah. Those are hard numbers, those are.
When will it end? What city would be the next? What can we do?
Oh yeah. Those are hard numbers, those are.
Even with the most conservative estimate taking those things into consideration, would prove me right. I can understand that you don't like the fact that I'm right, but don't even try to claim I was wrong just because you're ignorant of history.
Go ahead and prove it then. I'm not going to accept handwaving as fact.
No problem. Just provide me with an accurate body count from all the crusades (when Christians attacked Muslims without cause....again), and I'll add it to the total.
Don't look to me kiddo. You're the one that made the assertion. It's your job to back it up or fold.
Radar's construction assumes that Iraq 1/2, Afghanistan, and etc. were specifically Christian actions and nobody calls him on it.
vsp, you whiffed on this obvious blatant grouping of these actions as representative of an entire religion. What do you see and what do you not see?
vsp, you whiffed on this obvious blatant grouping of these actions as representative of an entire religion. What do you see and what do you not see?
Not sure what you mean by that.
Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?
"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)
How many stop and think about WHY the other side "hates" them, much less as to whether that "mass hatred" actually exists? How many scoff at that kind of thinking as "embracing the attackers" or "putting them in therapy for their anger issues?"
99% of these people spouting this nonsense have never even _met_ anyone from the country or countries they're tarring. If not for the actions of these extremists, 99% of these people would live their entire lives without affecting the lives of the other side's inhabitants in any way. (It's difficult to even define "sides" in this argument. Is this Christianity vs. Islam? America vs. Islam? America vs. Iraq? Christianity vs. al-Qaeda?) They're basing their opinions on the actions and statements of these extremists rather than on what everyday people think. Unfortunately, bombs and bullets can't tell the difference between extremists and everyday people.
Are there extremists on both sides? Obviously. But the rank-and-file on both sides are seemingly caught up in this I Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us propaganda loop that collapses when a bit of critical thinking is applied.
That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
What we don't see, and this is one part I agree with mrnoodle, is the tens of thousands of muslims marching in the streets to take back the good name of islam. What we don't see is people ratting out their neigbors because they are busy making car bombs in the garage. What we don't see is a very loud voice of the muslim imams denouncing the violence. This to us in the U.S. paints a very grim picture of islam. It's all we have to go on.
And what picture do Middle Eastern Muslims have of America, its leadership, or its Christian citizens? What news do THEY get?
They get the same blurry picture that most Americans get -- that there are Hordes of Scary People Over There From A Violent Religion Who Want To Kill Us, wherever "There" is.
The average Muslim doesn't believe the "Allah wants America dead" bullshit any more than the average Christian believes that "God's word must dominate the world" bullshit.
But they don't make the news. Osama and Dobson do.
Radar's construction assumes that Iraq 1/2, Afghanistan, and etc. were specifically Christian actions and nobody calls him on it.
_Specifically_ Christian? No. Iraq 1 had a lot more to do with region politics and oil than any religious concerns. Afghanistan was "Someone hit us hard so we need to bomb something." Iraq 2, well, does _anyone_ have good answers as to why we should've gone there? Dubya hasn't provided much of any, IMHO.
But the elephant in the corner is the religious influence that's in the ear of the Republican party and drives chunks of their agenda, including foreign policy. (A lot in Washington want Israel protected and promoted for reasons that have nothing to do with region politics, the spread of democracy or oil, for instance.) Discount the evangelicals at your peril, particularly when the President and many in his administration are receptive to the This Is A Christian Nation crowd.
Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?
"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)
________________________________________
Are there extremists on both sides? Obviously. But the rank-and-file on both sides are seemingly caught up in this I Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us Because We Hate Them Because They Hate Us propaganda loop that collapses when a bit of critical thinking is applied.
That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
_________________________________________
The average Muslim doesn't believe the "Allah wants America dead" bullshit any more than the average Christian believes that "God's word must dominate the world" bullshit. But they don't make the news. Osama and Dobson do.
You're applying "critical thinking" but completely disregarding the realities that are occurring on your doorstep. How nice that ALL 1.3 billion muslims don't want us dead. I'm sure ALL Germans didn't want us dead in WWII. Yet they all suffered as a result of war. A war, interestingly enough, that we had no stake in -- what the hell do we care about Poland, anyway? So I suppose, using you and Radar's interpretation of things, we were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the fact that Nazism was eliminated as a world power doesn't come close to justifying our actions.
Of course, 60 years later we find ourselves again standing between the Jews and another bunch of wackos, which I must admit gives me a bit of a gagging feeling in my throat. However, they have fired upon us, and we should be concentrating on eliminating the muslim extremism that caused them to do so. We don't need to swat at the individual ants that bite us on the feet, we need to get rid of the nest before we're eaten alive (it would be comforting to think that we're not in danger of that, wouldn't it?)
Oddly, that sounds alot like what the muslims say about us. Guess what? We have diametrically opposing values and goals. Of COURSE one side wants the other to fail, because the existence of one threatens the existence of the other. The shop owner in America has no reason to hate the shop owner in Afghanistan. But that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. We have been publicly identified by the leadership of these supposedly "small" groups of extremists as Allah-approved targets of violence. Maybe that's okay with you, but it's not okay with me.
Still, you are very right -- not all muslims want to continue the cycle of violence. They are the ones lining up to work and fight with us in Baghdad, and they're the ones to whom the country of Iraq will be turned over. The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as insurgency is carried out by local citizenry, not by foreign terrorists) won't ever go away, but their efforts can be muted, and the job of keeping them at bay can be turned over to the country of Iraq, once a certain level of training has been achieved.
But now, the liberals are in a quandary. At first, they tried to marginalize the muslims fighting with us and building the new Iraqi govt. as pawns of Bushco, operating a puppet regime for Republican oil-grabbers. Of course, as the number of Iraqis willing to fight for their freedom swelled, that started to look kind of silly, even for the left. So they had to fall back on the second line of defense: "Yeah, well we should've never been there in the first place. It's still all Bush's fault, and no matter what the outcome of the war (a non-extremist government in the heart of the middle east, hopefully), we have to remember to demonize America's presence there.
From that perspective comes the notion that we must never fight muslims, because Not All Muslims Are Bad. Instead, we need to find individual warlords and bring them on Judge Judy to let them know that they've been very naughty and must never do "it" again. That's a fabulous way to lose wars, and I'm really glad that the cut-and-run Democrats are not in charge of this effort.
edit: I interned in the civil engineering department at my college for 3 or 4 years. I saw more muslims in a day than you're likely to see in a year. Most didn't use deodorant, considering it to be unmanly. I'm not saying they're "wrong", but they certainly smelled manly.
I'm not going to reply to noodle's comments because they make me very, very angry and it's been a stressful enough couple of days as it is. A number of friends were caught in the tubes when this happened and everyone is still kind of in shock, everyone feels very unsafe in in the inner city which is essentially where I live (back in london now). Amazingly parts of the underground are working, busses are running as normal and trains are running as normal, massive props to the authorities on getting things back to normal so quickly.
I spoke at some length of a friend of mine that acted as part of the legal team defending some of the guys in the Ricin Plot case that collapsed over here. He had a few interesting things to say.
1: There is a big fear of a huge crackdown of some sort on the Muslim community, there have already been many, many arrests.
2: The majority of those guys will be completely innocent but the hurt and anger that will come from their harsh treatment while they are arrested will do nothing to help relations.
3: One of their ex-clients or friend thereof as a thank-you warned them to stay off the tube. He has since been arrested.
These attacks were highly indiscriminate, they probably hit as many devout Muslims as Christians or anyone else. The feel at the moment is these guys were 'home grown', brits radicalised at home rather than imported terrorists. If this is a war it's a war of ideas, not faith or nationality and it can't be won like one of those wars. It can only be defeated by defeating those ideas, you can't do that with bombs.
I think you hit the nail on the head there Jag. Thank you, and again, my sympathies.
Fine, I've made someone angry again. I'll stop posting on this topic. If you want to take it in the ass from every movement or country that decides to take a dislike to you, fine. It must be a comfortable illusion to live under, wish I could share it.
You can't change minds until you've made your own people safe from the bombs.
You can't make people safe from the bombs until you change minds.
What stopped the last group to terrorise london, the IRA? Certainly wasn't the security forces.
_Specifically_ Christian? No. Iraq 1 had a lot more to do with region politics and oil than any religious concerns. Afghanistan was "Someone hit us hard so we need to bomb something." Iraq 2, well, does _anyone_ have good answers as to why we should've gone there?
http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtmlyou didn't make me angry - I just don't understand your logic - oh well. I still like/respect you and value your opinion, because it is usually well founded and based.
bad people do bad things no matter what their background is. nuff said.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Noodle's rants kept returning to a central argument of "9 out of 10 Muslims hate us and wish we were dead." That is not only a fallacy, but a dangerous one, because what would I wager that a hell of a lot of those Muslims believe in return?
"9 out of 10 Westerners hate us and wish we were dead." (Would've said "Americans" until yesterday's attacks broadened the target circle significantly.)
How many stop and think about WHY the other side "hates" them, much less as to whether that "mass hatred" actually exists?
Oh I see; by saying "what would I wager" you admit you don't
know what they think, but having "stopped and thought" what you would
wager they think, you have far greater insight into the situation. Got it!
99% of these people spouting this nonsense have never even _met_ anyone from the country or countries they're tarring.
Tarring the 99%, however, is fair game. In fact it's 9% better than Noodle's "9 out of 10." Good work that.
That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
Discount the evangelicals at your peril, particularly when the President and many in his administration are receptive to the This Is A Christian Nation crowd.
Hey look, there's demonization in your playbook too.
...
That's why I twigged on the phrase "these people" in the first place, because it was an obvious euphemism for a demonization of a hell of a lot more people than the terrorists themselves, and I can't say that my instincts were wrong about that.
...
vsp, your instincts were NOT wrong about that. You (finally) clearly say what fuels the hatred on
all sides. It is largely a product lazy weak thinking. Do any of you for a moment think that the criminals responsible for this tragedy specifically targeted any of the victims? Of course not. To the perpetrators, the intended victims were "those people". That was good enough for them. Lazy. And that's practically a compliment compared to the other truthful characterizations of these acts.
This kind of stunted thinking is useful in many ways. It's easy. Conveniently, it is cheap and effective to produce and promote (think FOXNews). It is flexible; Osama bin Laden -> Saudia Arabia -> Afghanistan -> Saddam Hussein -> Iraq...whatever. "If I see brown, it's goin' down."
But useful and effective only applies if you wish to continue the struggle. It does not apply if your goal is to eliminate the conflict. If resolution is your goal, if you are a seeker of peace, then the path of the lazy is closed to you. A harder way lies ahead. This narrow path requires that you open your mind to the point of view of the other side. And I guarantee that those views are held by individuals.
... scratch any muslim, underneath you are likely to find...if not a terrorist, someone who believes what the terrorists are doing is just.
The usefulness of labels in this way is very limited, and mrnoodle, you has driven them well past their end. Look here for a minute, 'k?
To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.
He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies—and what’s his reason? I am a Jew.
Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian
is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute—and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
The Merchant of Venice
--Act III, Scene i, lines 43-61
William Shakespeare
These labels are old, but perfectly interchangable for the events of our own time. Indeed, they do bleed, just as they've shown we do. But when you refuse to acknowledge their very humanity, then you will fail to see a person, seeing only "those people". And the very slipperiness of that concept that drew you to it in the first place DOOMS you to be stuck with it forever. Kill one, bomb one hundred and another thousand anonymously stand up to replace them. You sow the seeds of your own destruction when you fight hate and ignorance with ignorance and hate.
Jaguar,
I apologize for having my priorities upside down, taking the bait here before I reached out to you. I am enormously relieved that you personally are well, and that your city and your leadership have responded so well. My thoughts and prayers are with you and yours.
You're applying "critical thinking" but completely disregarding the realities that are occurring on your doorstep. How nice that ALL 1.3 billion muslims don't want us dead. I'm sure ALL Germans didn't want us dead in WWII. Yet they all suffered as a result of war. A war, interestingly enough, that we had no stake in -- what the hell do we care about Poland, anyway? So I suppose, using you and Radar's interpretation of things, we were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and the fact that Nazism was eliminated as a world power doesn't come close to justifying our actions.
There was that little "Pearl Harbor" thing. And that "Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor" thing. A lot of Americans _didn't_ give a rat's ass about Poland until after they themselves had been attacked, and quite frankly, if Germany hadn't declared war on us, a lot of Americans would've been satisfied to take out the Japanese and let Europe settle its own affairs.
Now tell me how Saddam Hussein was within lightyears of Adolf Hitler.
Of course, 60 years later we find ourselves again standing between the Jews and another bunch of wackos, which I must admit gives me a bit of a gagging feeling in my throat. However, they have fired upon us, and we should be concentrating on eliminating the muslim extremism that caused them to do so.
Take out the word "muslim" and I'm on board with you.
Here's a question: is al-Qaeda's primary motivation
political or
religious? Was 9/11 a strike against Christian America in the name of Allah, or was it a terrorist act in the name of specific political demands? The evidence points overwhelmingly to the latter.
Apply Occam's Razor. Which is the simplest explanation?
If Islam is such an inherently violent and xenophobic religion that its adherents may feel compelled to strike out violently against non-believers, if the calling to promote Allah and subdue all others is that strong... then why is 9/11 an aberration in American history rather than a recurring event?
Why did so many Americans think of terrorism as "something that happens Over There" on 9/11, rather than an everpresent threat? You can't say that our security was strong and vigilant for decades before 9/11, because it wasn't. You can't say that there were no Muslims living in or with access to the United States for decades before 9/11, because there were. So when you take Bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of the equation, why _haven't_ other Muslims heard the call and struck at America, The Great Satan, the most powerful Christian-dominated nation on the planet repeatedly in the name of spiritual conquest?
Is Bin Laden spiritually driven to the point of obliterating Christian America, or is he more interested in getting the United States' economic, military and political fingers out of the Middle Eastern pie? Which makes more sense, that this is a true religious jihad (with Bin Laden and his followers the only ones devout and wise enough to interpret the Koran correctly and be called to significant action), or that this is Bin Laden's way of trying to force US interests out of Saudi Arabia, out of Iraq, out of what he considers to be Palestinian land through violent terrorism?
Are there religious overtones? Of course. Bin Laden uses religious language in his speeches. So does Dubya. Is Dubya a raving evangelist? Both know that Joe Average is (sadly) more likely to buy into religion-themed arguments than sophisticated political arguments. It's an easy card to play. A lot of people hear "God/Allah wishes this" and portions of their brains shut off; it's such a _convenient_ self-justification for actions. Is much of their hatred for Israel religiously grounded? Of course. But much of America's _support_ for Israel has similar roots, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how a Christian-dominated nation plunking a new Jewish nation down on traditionally-Arabic land, no matter how laudable the reasons for doing so, could create some long-term grudges and prejudices.
There is a difference between "taking it in the ass from anyone and everyone" and responding to
those responsible for terrorism instead of allowing it to escalate into a larger war. This is not some religious cage match, Christianity vs. Islam best of three falls to determine who's the World Deity Champion. This is terrorism by a distinct minority that _welcomes_ overreaction by its target, because that's the best recruiting tool they could ask for. "See? That's what I'm ON about! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Fine, I've made someone angry again. I'll stop posting on this topic.
mrnoodle, I can't count the number of times I have drafted responses to your posts and then deleted them without submitting them. Your posts always make me angry and my deleted responses reflect that. You seem to go out of your way to try to piss people off. In many of your posts, you put words and ideas into the mouths of liberals, and you always mischaracterize us. It's easy to make liberals sound wrong when you put lies in our mouths.
In the past, I have contemplated putting you on ignore, but decided against it.
I've occasionally tried debating issues with you in the past, but it's impossible because your style is to mischaracterize the other side and make shit up to support your own arguments. That's why you make people angry.
I'm like the silent majority of muslims who don't approve of the terrorists. But unlike them I am speaking up now so that the lurkers here won't think that mrnoodle speaks for all of us. I don't approve of your posts. Probably not any of them. Consider this a blanket rebuttal for every political post you have written or are going to write. I won't be making individual rebuttals of each one, because I don't have the energy.
hey, Jag.. glad to hear you're alright. just my little bit though.. it seems that London would be a foolish place to attack (although, yes I can see why.. being a world famous city) however, seeing as how they (you) survived the Nazi bombings in WWII it seems that that would provide some indication of how Londoners would react to such a thing.
Oh I see; by saying "what would I wager" you admit you don't know what they think, but having "stopped and thought" what you would wager they think, you have far greater insight into the situation. Got it!
Tarring the 99%, however, is fair game. In fact it's 9% better than Noodle's "9 out of 10." Good work that.
Have I interviewed each and every Iraqi personally? Obviously, no.
Does viewing human beings in Iraq as having similar wants, needs and motivations to human beings in America seem more logical than assuming that they're all a bunch of frothing anti-American religious zealots? A bit.
Do I feel more justified believing that giving the benefit of the doubt to Joe Average in Iraq is more insightful than writing 90% off as "they want us dead"? Yes, I do, without the slightest shame. Some of my arguments as to why _not_ believing that Iraqis and Muslims in general are raving xenophobes seems logical are earlier in this thread.
Hey look, there's demonization in your playbook too.
Come on, now. Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that George W. Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans _aren't_ influenced by Christian extremists to any significant degree?
Saying that Bush believes that yoyos like James Dobson know what they're talking about doesn't make me a rabid anti-Christian bigot, because I know very well that the vast majority of Christians don't buy into Dobson's agenda. Am I demonizing if I worry that Bush does?
To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.
That denbeste piece is good. He needs to take a gig as Whitehouse speechwriter.
The arab street's apparent strong reaction to the insurgents' murder of the Egyptian ambassador is hopeful.
and Pakistan is one major wild card.
To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.
The difference is that in the ME the extremists are in charge, whilst here even they must respect the rule of law which puts enormous power in the hands of the people.
Consider, for example: the #1 issue to all evangelical extremists is abortion, yet abortion remains legal. Why?
Because in order to wield that political power, it's important that it remain legal.
Weird little problem; if abortion were made illegal it would permit the opposition to wield a much larger, much more powerful group, and one that terrifies the righty extremists.
What we've done here is to construct a government that has to respect the will of the majority whilst remaining a representative republic. So in order for the evangelicals to really gain power, they would have to convince a majority of the American public that they are correct. Do you think they can do that? Because it's not going well for them, as their numbers are down.
Now contrast Iran. In Iran, the mulllahs have absolute power over the country. They decide who will go on the ballot to be their puppet President. They make the rulings that govern the country. Iran is going to have nukes soon.
So which one is more dangerous again?
Go ahead and prove it then. I'm not going to accept handwaving as fact.
Here's a few fun numbers and facts about the Crusades from the same site I gave in an earlier reply on this thread
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst and a second site called "Timeline of The Crusades"
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blchron_xian_crusades02.htm
This listing is far from being an exhaustive one. The Crusades went on for hundreds of years and were characterized by many bloody encounters. I got tired of wading through them all. If you want more, check the sites above.
(I put the source of each statistic in bold print)
Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland
Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women in Rhineland comm. suicide to avoid the mob, 1096.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, 6 :
Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum: 4,000 Christians, 3,000 Moslems killed
1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred.
1099, Fall of Jerusalem: 70,000 Moslems massacred.
Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks killed
Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs.
1190: 500 Jews massacred in York.
In the First Crusade (From Timeline of the Crusades above):
Crusaders capture the city of M'arrat-an-Numan, a small city east of Antioch. According to reports, Crusaders are observed eating the flesh of both adults and children; as a consequence, the Franks would be labeled "cannibals" by Turkish historians
Crusaders breach the walls of Jerusalem at two points: Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin at St. Stephen's Gate on the north wall and Count Raymond at the Jaffa Gate on the west wall, thus allowing them to capture the city. Estimates place the number of casualties as high as 100,000. Tancred of Hauteville, a grandson of Robert Guiscard and nephew of Bohemund of Taranto, is the first Crusader through the walls. The day is Friday, Dies Veneris, the anniversary of when Christians believe that Jesus redeemed the world and is the first of two days of unprecedented slaughter.
On July 16, 1099, Crusaders herded the Jews of Jerusalem into a synagogue and set it on fire.
There's lots more, too, but I got sick of reading it all. There were plenty of atrocities to go around. The Muslims seemed to often just sell their captives as slaves. The Christians preferred slaughter as the examples above show. Why on earth would anyone defend the Crusades?????????
Well, Marichiko, that's a start. However in order to confirm Radar's 100 to 1 ratio we'd need better numbers on how many Christians have been killed by Muslims over the same periods.
What you need to understand is that I'm mostly jerking Radar's chain. :stickpoke: He stated a definite ratio when I just knew he never did any research to back it up. Also please note that I never said the statement was incorrect. I don't know from my own knowledge that it is. But if you're going to put stuff out there as fact, you ought to have something better than pulpit pounding to back it up.
In any case, I am not defending the crusades. But I'm not going to get all weepy over something my ancesters did hundreds of years ago either. And I don't think it in any way justifies current events.
There's been a lot of strong rhetoric in many directions on this issue and most of it is hogwash. Nobody here has a clue what percentage of Muslims hate America/Americans. If they did, they'd be citing sources.
Come on, now. Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that George W. Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans _aren't_ influenced by Christian extremists to any significant degree?
I will honestly and seriously suggest that.
George Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans are influenced by CHRISTIANS, no doubt. But not the extremists, no. Not the abortion-clinic bombers, not the KKK.
"Extremist Muslim" = very different from average Muslim, as you have pointed out. "Extremist Christian" = the majority (or even a significant percentage) of people who are Christian? No.
--clip--
There's been a lot of strong rhetoric in many directions on this issue and most of it is hogwash. Nobody here has a clue what percentage of Muslims hate America/Americans. If they did, they'd be citing sources.
AS IF actually having a hard number, a verifiable number to 4 decimal places would even have an effect on anything anyway. Sheesh.
A couple of important points:
These people who committed these crimes,
they surely hated somebody.
Violence begets violence. Not peace. Not quiet. There are sometimes breaks between the blows. But do not be deceived--those breaks only let you distinguish the blows. The end of violence is the start of peace.
"War" waged against individuals or small groups of individuals is like using an ICBM to pound down the nail that stands up. *NOT* the right tool for the job, and doomed to fail. And we are talking about individuals here, groups here--not governments. Not nations. And not religions or dogma.
There are well over a billion muslims in the world, a quarter of all people. Don't you think if they were all angry, the streets would run red? Wrongly focusing on "Islam the Enemy" misdirects your energy at best and at worst exacerbates the problem by fertilizing the ground for new "haters".
The West has much going for it. Culturally, economically, politically, militarilily, socially. Sell it. Talk it up. Honey vs vinegar. No one I know is opposed to this. Notable exceptions center around *how* stuff gets done. Who doesn't want a chance to make a life, but not at the expense of another. My progressive world view encourages dissent in dialog. Even when I disagree with the content of the opposition's points, I highly value the variety and the freedom that permits their expression.
I worship God, but that worship does not extend to war against non-believers.
I say tomato, you say tomahto. What we share in common positively overwhelms our differences. By staying our fears and focusing one what we share, infinitely more would be accomplished.
Well, Marichiko, that's a start. However in order to confirm Radar's 100 to 1 ratio we'd need better numbers on how many Christians have been killed by Muslims over the same periods.
What you need to understand is that I'm mostly jerking Radar's chain. :stickpoke: He stated a definite ratio when I just knew he never did any research to back it up. Also please note that I never said the statement was incorrect. I don't know from my own knowledge that it is. But if you're going to put stuff out there as fact, you ought to have something better than pulpit pounding to back it up.
I understand what you're saying, Dar. Radar and I are rather unlikely allies and he should have provided citations. As it turns out, however, his 100 to 1 ratio is probably close to the mark if you check the other stats I gave.
In any case, I am not defending the crusades. But I'm not going to get all weepy over something my ancesters did hundreds of years ago either. And I don't think it in any way justifies current events.
Thank you for clarifying your stance. I agree, its pointless to shed tears over the wrongs our own people may have committed centuries ago. It is useful to be aware of them, though. Ancestral hatreds can run deep, and certainly the collision between the West and the Mid East has a long and varied history. No, I don't think London or 9/11 was justified by the crusades and I doubt that the people who committed these actions were thinking of the Crusades either. The Crusades
do present a sort of backdrop for the mutual animosity of Christian versus Muslim, East versus West.
There's been a lot of strong rhetoric in many directions on this issue and most of it is hogwash. Nobody here has a clue what percentage of Muslims hate America/Americans. If they did, they'd be citing sources.
Yes, people love to present rhetoric as fact. The statistic as to what percentage of Muslims hate America is an impossible one to find. As far as I know, there's been no Gallup Poll taken in Iraq and even if there were, I doubt that the respondants would give honest answers for fear of repercusions either way and from either side.
I think the biggest mistake people make is to view this as a religous conflict. It is not. The cultural tradition of the West happens to be Christian. The cultural tradition of the Mid East happens to be Muslim. Both Christ and Mohammed no doubt sit in heaven and weep to see what their followers are doing in the world today.
--snip--I think the biggest mistake people make is to view this as a religous conflict. It is not. The cultural tradition of the West happens to be Christian. The cultural tradition of the Mid East happens to be Muslim. Both Christ and Mohammed no doubt sit in heaven and weep to see what their followers are doing in the world today.
And I weep with them. As does every thinking person.
If you have ever played with a brother or sister, been held by your mother, encouraged by your father, you weep. If you have had friends that stood by you, helped you, known you, you weep. If you have held your own child and trembled in awe or laughed with joy or been temporarily paralyzed with worry over all that could happen to them, you weep.
If you think that every drop of blood spilled came from someone's brother or sister. A friend is now gone. The too-soon departure of a parent. Every life lost is the loss of some mother's child.
Weep. Weep as though the wellspring of compassion has been uncovered. And let that healing compassion flow over us all.
And I weep with them. As does every thinking person.
If you have ever played with a brother or sister, been held by your mother, encouraged by your father, you weep. If you have had friends that stood by you, helped you, known you, you weep. If you have held your own child and trembled in awe or laughed with joy or been temporarily paralyzed with worry over all that could happen to them, you weep.
If you think that every drop of blood spilled came from someone's brother or sister. A friend is now gone. The too-soon departure of a parent. Every life lost is the loss of some mother's child.
Weep. Weep as though the wellspring of compassion has been uncovered. And let that healing compassion flow over us all.
:notworthy :thankyou: :notworthy
If only ! :love2:
English people can't be hung either. They have no chins. They just slip through the noose. I was pretty shocked when I heard King's Cross was blown up. There must have been prostitute body parts all over the place.
Please consider that I work in EMS, where the humor is blacker than black ...
This is probably one of the most insensitive things that I will read or hear all year.
Radar. Just dont ever ever come looking for friends here in England after that filthy bit of written excrement. That wasn't humour it was a glimpse into something disgusting masquerading as a mind. Don't waste your time trying to explain or justify yourself because foul mouthing dead, maimed and missing people never was remotely funny even among adolescents which I take you to be. I am completely disgusted.
was that meant to be funny radar? It wasn't even black funny, it was just plain fucking stupid. Fuck you, you worthless piece of shit.
I spent most of this morn in the city centre, most of the tube is running, the busses are back to normal, people are a little scared but it's amazing how quickly everything has bounced back, even most of the west end is running as normal. Lots of police around, even more than normal but that was partly because the queen was opening something or other. This *is* a resiliant city, it'll take more than that to bring london to it's knees.
Jag, Czin, and all the other Brits on this site: My apologies for my fellow Americans stupid-assed comments. Radar is beyond help but he's allowed to have a keyboard for some reason. Ignore him.
You Brits are showing your true mettle. You have my admiration and my best wishes. You make us all proud.
Jag, and all the other Brits here, take care of yourselves. I hope they find the bastards.
AS IF actually having a hard number, a verifiable number to 4 decimal places would even have an effect on anything anyway. Sheesh.
True enough, BigV. I only mention it because there have been a number of posts arguing over it. This is a smart group. You'd think we could raise better arguments than "is not" "is too" stuff.
Jag, Czin, and all the other Brits on this site: My apologies for my fellow Americans stupid-assed comments. Radar is beyond help but he's allowed to have a keyboard for some reason. Ignore him.
Actually, Radar is being developed as America's newest weapon in the war on terror. We plan on dropping him in the middle of Afghanistan with a megaphone and a pair of running shoes. In about 2 or 3 hours, every Muslim extremist in the world is going to forget about hating Americans or Europeans in general and concentrate on just one in particular. ;)
Good one, Rich! Yeah, that comment of Radar's was one of the most unfeeling things I've ever read. That's Radar for you.
Radar. Just dont ever ever come looking for friends here in England after that filthy bit of written excrement. That wasn't humour it was a glimpse into something disgusting masquerading as a mind. Don't waste your time trying to explain or justify yourself because foul mouthing dead, maimed and missing people never was remotely funny even among adolescents which I take you to be. I am completely disgusted.
Why would I look for friends in England? I have plenty in America, Japan, Vietnam, Ireland, Israel, France, Holland, Spain, Australia, etc. I'd have to be at the bottom of the barrel to look for friends in England. If you can't take a prostitute joke, it only proves what tightass assholes the English are.
Briana can shove her apology up her ignorant ass too. I don't require an apology, I've done nothing that needs to be apologized for. I make no apologies and don't need to explain anything. Blow me if you don't like it. :finger: :finger: :finger:
Charming as always, aren't we? I'm almost sorry I stuck up for you on the statistics thing. I guess its like the monkey on the typewriter. Bang away long enough and it actually comes up with a correct sentence. :eyebrow:
SNIP~~
I spoke at some length of a friend of mine that acted as part of the legal team defending some of the guys in the Ricin Plot case that collapsed over here. He had a few interesting things to say.
1: There is a big fear of a huge crackdown of some sort on the Muslim community, there have already been many, many arrests.
2: The majority of those guys will be completely innocent but the hurt and anger that will come from their harsh treatment while they are arrested will do nothing to help relations.
3: One of their ex-clients or friend thereof as a thank-you warned them to stay off the tube. He has since been arrested.
~~SNIP
And neither your friend or whomever warned him alerted the authorities? That makes them both accessories before the fact, to murder. Gosh, I wonder why the whackos can't be stopped. :rolleyes:
Oh, that bullshit about surviving the blitz. That generation is long gone.
How can they warn some people as a "thank you" = yeah right, so like that "helpful" westerner is so much nicer, or deserving than the next. Its just such bullshit. People crap on and say "oh but if you only got to know the Muslims (or whoever it is) personally, you would understand their way of life and thinking more."
pfft!
Get to know US more you cowards. Get to know how simple, and pure WE really are. get to know that we are nice, and we are good, and we are not anything BAD!! If they did maybe they would want to give us all "thankyou's" by not bombing us in the first place. even though we don't worship Ala and wear full covering clothes and kill our women if they blink more than the regulated hourly allowed amount for blinking.
I just wish all the bad people would disappear.
Wow. The terrorists are winning. They now have us so viciously fighting among ourselves as to escalate to insults. Next comes fisticuffs. Now that will be interesting.
bruce - they were alerted as soon has he left the building as far as i'm aware, with the clients and work they do they have to be ultracareful about this stuff.
---snip---People crap on and say "oh but if you only got to know the Muslims (or whoever it is) personally, you would understand their way of life and thinking more."
pfft!
Get to know US more you cowards. Get to know how simple, and pure WE really are. get to know that we are nice, and we are good, and we are not anything BAD!! If they did maybe they would want to give us all "thankyou's" by not bombing us in the first place.--snip--
First let me say that I agree with you that if we were better known by the people who are bombing us, that maybe we wouldn't be bombed. A lot more than maybe, actually, more like almost certainly. In fact I think the truth of that proposition extends even beyond east-west muslim-christian-jew brown-white-black-yellow-red "differences". I think that it is unavoidable that the more you really know another person, the less likely you are to want to bomb them.
Which brings me to me to the point on which you and I agree less. I read your post and I get the sense that you're saying: "Some people tell me to get to know 'them' and things would be better, but I say let 'them' get to know me instead and things will be better". There's a lot of truth to that.
The sticking point for me is this. I can get other people to do diddly-squat. I say "do this, do that" and it's just wind. I have a vanishingly small amount of control over what other people do.
But, I do have much more control over what I do. And if I choose to do so, I can learn about 'them'. Which will likely have the positive effects described above. And will possibly have the positive effect of demonstrating to 'them' that: A--I am not bombing them, and B--I value 'them' enough to put forth the effort to learn about them, and that will probably incline them to reciprocrate.
It all starts inside, and the only inside I have access to is my own. That's the only change I can count on making. That's the one I try to make better every day.
think that it is unavoidable that the more you really know another person, the less likely you are to want to bomb them.
Unless you are a murderous Islamofacist extreemist blindly convinced of your own revelation and the subhuman nature of your victims. I do not believe there is any rehabilitation possibility there. Recruiting and indoctrination, if we can find a way to break that powerful weapon....
The moderate muslims need more than to just get to know us, they need to get to know and value a new view of themselves.
Unless you are a murderous Islamofacist extreemist blindly convinced of your own revelation and the subhuman nature of your victims. I do not believe there is any rehabilitation possibility there. Recruiting and indoctrination, if we can find a way to break that powerful weapon....
There are extremists on both sides of the equation. Some are sociopaths who would pose a threat to human life under any circumstances. Why are sociopaths able to recruit followers? Generally something has gone very wrong in the social milieu from which their followers emerge.
The moderate muslims need more than to just get to know us, they need to get to know and value a new view of themselves.
How do you think
moderate Muslims view themselves? Why should moderates get a new view of themselves? Perhaps moderate Christians should do the same. It is not the moderates on either side who have gotten us into this, but the fundamentalists on BOTH sides who are creating the havoc.
Wait wait wait, I found this post from BigV on August 3, 1952. It was on the backups:
If only we study the Klan, and let them air their greivances, perhaps they will not be been so violent and outraged. We must understand that there are some valid reasons why they hate the negro. Perhaps if we are open to them we can help them understand the differences of the negro. Anyway, the most important answer to their lynchings is to completely understand their different culture. At least, if we do, we will stop shooting at them in return when they show up on our lawns.
Wait wait wait, I found this post from BigV on August 3, 1952. It was on the backups:
Damn, August 3,
1952? Out here in the West us kids were still playing with tin cans attached with string. You folks back there in Philly were pretty damn advanced for the Eisenhower era. I couldn't even hold a crayon yet. Just how old did you say you were again, BigV? :eyebrow:
It is not the moderates on either side who have gotten us into this, but the fundamentalists on BOTH sides who are creating the havoc.
Crusades and historic tallys aside, Fundamentalist Islamic militants seem (at least to me) to be creating more havoc right now. Trying to understand the enemy is one thing, excusing is another. I'm not up for that.
Crusades and historic tallys aside, Fundamentalist Islamic militants seem (at least to me) to be creating more havoc right now. Trying to understand the enemy is one thing, excusing is another. I'm not up for that.
Who said anything about excusing them? There is no possible excuse for 9/11, no possible excuse for what just happened in London. We must be aware, however, that our side, too, has been responsible for its share of civilian deaths.
Unless you are a murderous Islamofacist extreemist blindly convinced of your own revelation and the subhuman nature of your victims. I do not believe there is any rehabilitation possibility there. Recruiting and indoctrination, if we can find a way to break that powerful weapon....
Unless you are a murderous Christofacist extreemist blindly convinced of your own revelation and the subhuman nature of your victims. I do not believe there is any rehabilitation possibility there. Recruiting and indoctrination, if we can find a way to break that powerful weapon....
Bonus points if you can find the functional difference in these two quotes. How is it that an "Islamic" whacko is irredeemable? It is the "islam" or is it the "whacko" that makes it so? I thought we established some time ago that this is not repeat not a religious issue, irrespective of the language used to camoflage it. There are often levers pulled and buttons pushed on all sides that are connected to the faith of one side or another. But any serious study of any of the faith traditions involved in any of these conflagrations any you'll find that the moderate position in all of them hold that bombing the unbelievers is a no-no.
Regarding recruiting and indoctrination...indoctrination is the exact opposite of understanding. THAT'S why it works as a recruiting tool, because it
is indoctrination. "Do not think, do not question, obey. Act on orders. Do as you're told." You're right to point out that this is an important aspect of the problem, one that is critical to solving this problem.
Let me ask you, when those that are already indoctrinated, those that are indoctrinating the new recruits, what are these guys saying to the recruits? "America is bad, so bad you must be willing to die to help turn our situation around", or words to that effect. Now think, on someone not yet indoctrinated, someone who's avenues of critical thinking remain open, what would be a natural response to this dramatic statement. I mean, I would need some pretty good evidence to back up the claim that I have to be willing to die (something I don't want to do, something no one wants to do). Evidence, support, reasons. What might these trainers point to for support. What would convince a young man (or woman) to do this?
In my world, when I mess up once, I have to do, like, twenty good things before the memory of my goof-up fades. That ratio is flexible, if it's a bad boo-boo, then I might have to do many more postive things to balance out the perception of my net goodness. I believe this applies it your recruitment question as well.
Unfortunately, there are many many many things that are negative, some true, some not, some in between (spun), that we, America / the West / etc, that we're tarred with. The prospect of outweighing that mountain of negativity with twenty or a thousand or a zillion mountains of good is daunting. But doable. And it only happens one act at a time. I am trying to do my share. Jag put it well in this exchange:
--snip--You can't change minds until you've made your own people safe from the bombs.
Wrong.
You can't make people safe from the bombs until you change minds.
What stopped the last group to terrorise london, the IRA? Certainly wasn't the security forces.
The moderate muslims need more than to just get to know us, they need to get to know and value a new view of themselves.
Huh? The moderate muslims need what? If anything, the moderate muslims need to get to know their own community better and apply their own standards more consistently.
So let's recap. Whackos==bad, they bomb people and are impossible to rehabilitate.
Killing unbelievers is anathema in all mainstream religions, and the large majority of moderate believers agree.
A laser sharp focus on the religious aspect of this issue misses the point and wastes energy better spent on the real issue of entrenched, bone deep disillusionment and a sense of helplessness and victimhood on the part of the perpertrators.
I am not an apologist for these terrorists or their actions. I want it to stop. I believe the best way to reach that goal is through a greater understanding of each other. Don't you get it? You reap what you sow. I'm trying to sow peace here. I am sowing understanding. listening, compassion, brotherhood, in the hope that I will listened by my brothers. I hope that listening leads to understanding and compassion. I hope that leads to peace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4664209.stmmissing
Yeah, yeah. I'm not up for a debate. I'm just angry and sad.
As are we all. Just remember the horror continues on BOTH sides. Wouldn't these pictures also make ANYONE angry? These are children injured by US bombs. When are both sides going to stop killing innocent children, someone's beloved father, someone's sister or brother, someone's best friend in this world? The tragedy of London is HUMAN tragedy. The tragedy of 9/11 is a HUMAN tragedy. The tragedy of these two Iraqi children and many more like them is a HUMAN tragedy. There is no "us" versus "them." There is only us. If I must be the first one to reach out my hand, so be it.
I disagree. There is an "us" vs "them. Them being those who would specifcally target civilians during rush hour to create most terror and casualties.
Your peace movement needs a reality check.
Let me ask you, when those that are already indoctrinated, those that are indoctrinating the new recruits, what are these guys saying to the recruits?
Exactly. That's how terrorist organizations survive. They gain strength by being attacked, because the increasingly forceful and powerful attempts to quell them can be used as recruiting propaganda. Even if they all are killed, that will be the impetus for a new organization to form. The only way to kill a terrorist organization is to make it harder for the recruiters to convince people on the edge to join the fight.
I disagree. There is an "us" vs "them. Them being those who would specifcally target civilians during rush hour to create most terror and casualties.
Your peace movement needs a reality check.
Those children were responsible for the London bombings? Those children engineered 9/11? Why did we drop bombs over their homes? Why didn't we go after the REAL terrorist, Bin Laden?
My "peace movement" as you call it, is simply a desire to end the slaughter of innocents on both sides. If this desire makes me out of touch with reality, then so be it.
Even with our govermental missteps and mismanagement of which I have been alarmed, I guess I still dont equate the motivations or results of our miltary actions with those of Islamic terrorists. I still think we're the good guys.
That's how terrorist organizations survive. They gain strength by being attacked, because the increasingly forceful and powerful attempts to quell them can be used as recruiting propaganda. Even if they all are killed, that will be the impetus for a new organization to form. The only way to kill a terrorist organization is to make it harder for the recruiters to convince people on the edge to join the fight.
This cartoon kind of sums it up.
via Andrew Sullivan
"I feel the appeal, believe me. You are exasperated with the manifold faults of Tony Blair and George W Bush. Fighting your government is what you know how to do and what you want to do, and when you are confronted with totalitarian forces which are far worse than your government, the easy solution is to blame your government for them.
But it's a parochial line of reasoning to suppose that all bad, or all good, comes from the West - and a racist one to boot. The unavoidable consequence is that you must refuse to support democrats, liberals, feminists and socialists in the Arab world and Iran who are the victims of Islamism in its Sunni and Shia guises because you are too compromised to condemn their persecutors.
Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC.
Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."
-
Nick Cohen, writing yesterday in London's Observer.
For what its worth, here's my "peacenik", "bleeding heart" take on the entire mess:
We should hunt down Bin Laden and Co. and execute them.
We should hunt down those responsible for the London bombings and execute them.
We should hunt down any other terrorist responsible for innocent deaths and execute them.
We should do this cleanly, with surgical precision, and with no mercy.
We should stop carrying out theatrics which involve massive "collateral damage." We are smarter than this and all we accomplish is the creation of new fanatics who must again be tracked down and executed. We have better things to do with our time then to create breeding grounds for venomous reptiles.
Wait wait wait, I found this post from BigV on August 3, 1952. It was on the backups:
If only we study the Klan, and let them air their greivances, perhaps they will not be been so violent and outraged. We must understand that there are some valid reasons why they hate the negro. Perhaps if we are open to them we can help them understand the differences of the negro. Anyway, the most important answer to their lynchings is to completely understand their different culture. At least, if we do, we will stop shooting at them in return when they show up on our lawns.
UT: A couple of points...
1 -- First off, that's pretty funny. 1952. hehehe. Nice to have a little laugh, even if only to take the edge off.
2 -- Pertinent. Nice tie-in. Good job avoiding the easy/wrong blunder of casting this in religious tones.
4 -- I have got to learn to type faster. At this pace, I put knots in the thread. Sorry.
3 -- Thanks for helping me understand that I have been unclear in my earlier posts. I wish to revise and extend my remarks. I have been freely mixing two different related ideas and the results has been to muddy my expression of both ideas.
The first idea is that greater understanding of each other leads to less violence.
The second idea is that there is an important distinction between what has happened already, and what can be done in the present to improve the situation in the future.
My first idea (peace love and understanding) is squarely aimed at the prospect of reducing and preventing future violence. I see nothing in your post, artful though it is, that inclines me to change my mind. I should say that there are limits, however. Sometimes this approach does not work. I believe that those limits are human limits, not limits on the effectiveness and usefulness of this strategy. Have you ever heard the aphorism: a conclusion is where you got tired of thinking? I believe that violence is where you got tired of understanding. Because trying to understand is work. It's tiring. People give up. And if that surrender happens before the understanding equals the grievances, then ignorance will fill the gap, and violence is the product ignorance.
Your illustration is instructive. Let's follow it a little while. I would say that the KKK lynched negroes about whom they understood very little. Understanding breeds compassion, not homicidal violence. I can imagine the mental conversations of a lynch-er "I've seen enough. Hang'im." A closed mind. A closed mind admits no further understanding.
When you put words in my mouth: "If only
we understood them more,
they would blah blah blah...", get them right. I am saying that if I understand more, I am less violent. If the Klanmember's understanding were to increase, his tendency toward violence would diminish. I believe there is a level of understanding among men that would eliminate violence. I think that level is beyond my limits sometimes, beyond the limits of many men. But those limits can be increased, and what exercise raises the limitations of ignorance? Understanding. Striving. Compassion. Cause when those run dry for me, all I have left is this rock, this gun, this bomb. The more I increase the former, the less I rely on the latter.
How do I know this is a good idea? What about a contrarian view? Why don't we just kill all the offenders? There are difficulties in that route, fatal difficulties. Like, how will you know who to kill? What if you kill the wrong person? What effect will that have on the people close to the person you killed? What if you kill the right person? What effect will that have on the dead killer's surviving comrades? What if you kill all the right ones? What effect do you think that will have on the people who knew the ones you killed. Don't you think that all this killing is likely to incite the survivors to greater hatred? Why would you propose a strategy that makes more killers more desparate killers? There doesn't seem to be a deterrent effect given that many of these people
already behave as though they have nothing to lose.
I would clarify my second point, regarding the past, what has already happened. For those whose actions brought death to innocent people, no amount of understanding is possible to change the past. Our society has successfully coped with killers, for a long time. There are institutions and structures to serve justice, if not our hunger for retribution. Let those systems continue to work. It is hard work, and I support those dedicated individuals that do the work.
As to the second point regarding future violence. Let's look at your example again. Were the lynchings stopped because we carpet bombed the south? Because we made sweeps of neighborhoods and rounded up all the crackers and squeezed them until the squealled? Did we just shoot first and ask questions later? No. They stopped because our society's understanding of what was right and wrong reached a saturation point and crystallized into action. Whites and Blacks together decried the injustices, and worked within the bounds of our system to make it illegal then worked in their own communities to make it unpopular. Community shame was a powerful motivator, good ol' peer pressure, backed by the force of law. Upheld by people who believed in laws. Not because we just imprisoned indiscriminately or killed freely those who "looked like the perps".
Understanding is a UNIVERSAL HUMAN NEED. There is no man or woman that does not yearn to be understood. This understanding is not a finite resource. This is not a zero sum game. Understanding is like love, the more you give, the more you have. Like a wick kindled from a flame, one becomes two, and the light increases.
Whether we started the fire isn't as relevant as whether we're pouring gasoline or water on it, now. Of course the terrorists are evil. Of course, the vast majority of them are beyond rehabilitation. Of course Islamic fascism is a movement in and of itself, and one that needs to be stopped. The question is the best way of stopping it. And the only way to stop an ideological movement is to starve them of recruits.
Islamism stops being an ideology intent on building an empire from Andalusia to Indonesia, destroying democracy and subjugating women and becomes, by the magic of parochial reasoning, a protest movement on a par with Make Poverty History or the TUC.
Here Cohen displays some ignorance about the subject. The terrorists and Islamic fascists are beyond help. The ones at issue are the ones who are on the edge, ripe for the picking. And that edge is what needs to be pushed back. They need to be shown that we are on their side, and the terrorists are not.
Cohen is of course correct that terrorism is bad, but he seems to be trying to use that fact to say that we should ignore the things we do to make it worse.
You forgot about the part where we all plant trees and hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Hitchens:
We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.
Understand them yet?
via Andrew Sullivan
---
Again, I understand the appeal. Whether you are brown or white, Muslim, Christian, Jew or atheist, it is uncomfortable to face the fact that there is a messianic cult of death which, like European fascism and communism before it, will send you to your grave whatever you do. But I'm afraid that's what the record shows."
- Nick Cohen, writing yesterday in London's Observer.
Then fight the "messianic cult of death". Fight the cult that worships death in the temple, in the synagogue, in the church, in the streets, in the halls of power, in every place such foul, repulsive, hateful, death-loving enemies of humanity are found. And since "it", "like European fascism and communism before it, will send me to my grave whatever I do." I will go down to that grave
fighting.
But the last time I checked, history's grave contains European fascism and communism both.
Mr Sullivan, do you intend to bury Islam?! You're gonna need a bigger shovel.
Understand them yet?
The same was true with Jim Crow. Black people being allowed to live, work, ride, and marry with white people was a grievance of the KKK. Decades later, racism still exists, and even the KKK still exists, but the related terrorism and deaths have drastically decreased.
First, its Cohen's quote, and second he specifies Islamism as in extremist/jihadist.
By shovel, bullet, economics, education, security....its a good goal.
Indeed. But Cohen's entire argument is that rich idealistic Westerners are deluded by thinking that if only we could convince the terrorists that we're nice people, everything would be hunky dory.
No. There may indeed be people like that, since there's nothing so daft that nobody will believe it, but that is not a widely-held view, and arguing against that view is pointless.
The people we have to reach aren't the terrorists. The people we have to reach are the people who are fodder for their recruiters. Those are the people who we need to understand, and who we need to help to understand us.
Indeed. But Cohen's entire argument is that rich idealistic Westerners are deluded by thinking that if only we could convince the terrorists that we're nice people, everything would be hunky dory.
You may indeed have a point about delusional Western thinking. One need only look to Timothy McVeigh, the Atlanta Olympic bombing and numerous abortion clinic bombings to realize that Christian fundamentalists are as prone to acts of terrorism as their Muslim Mid Eastern counterparts.
Up until 9/11 Timothy Mc Veigh, who had ties to a Christian fundamentalist extremist group called Christian Identity, was responsible for the worst terrorist attack on US soil, the Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people, many of them children. The person responsible for the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing has yet to be captured and is known to be associated with domestic Christian fundamentalist groups. For quite sometime now, there have been countless bombings of abortion clinics, family planning centers and terrorist threats from domestic Christian extremists. In 1987, a number of white supremacists influenced by "Christian Idenity" teaching were indicted for plotting to poison the municipal water supplies of two major American cities.
(
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/07/1671.shtml)
We may really have a very hard time convincing Islamic fundamentalists, or anyone else for that matter, that we are "nice people" and we believe that God is love.
A little something I picked up at the
Reason website. It has several hotlinks, too many to add, and some interesting comments as well.
Londonistan
The Washington Post this morning offers a lengthy piece about the "sprawling shape and deep history of al Qaeda and related extremist groups in London." Writes the Post, the British capital long ago "became 'the Star Wars bar scene' for Islamic radicals, as former White House counterterrorism official Steven Simon called it, attracting a polyglot group of intellectuals, preachers, financiers, arms traders, technology specialists, forgers, travel organizers and foot soldiers."
"Today," according to the piece, "al Qaeda and its offshoots retain broader connections to London than to any other city in Europe . . ."
The NYT fronts its own version of the London story, writing that in recent years, "Britain had become a breeding ground for hate," and its capital "a crossroads for would-be terrorists who used it as a home base . . ."
The New Stateman's Jamie Campbell wrote last August about Why terrorists love Britain.
Posted by Charles Paul Freund at July 10, 2005 10:26 AM
The person responsible for the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing has yet to be captured and is known to be associated with domestic Christian fundamentalist groups.
Actually, we caught him.
BTW, Undertoad, in your own way, you did pick an instructive example.
Wait wait wait, I found this post from BigV on August 3, 1952. It was on the backups:
Quote:
If only we study the Klan, and let them air their greivances, perhaps they will not be been so violent and outraged. We must understand that there are some valid reasons why they hate the negro. Perhaps if we are open to them we can help them understand the differences of the negro. Anyway, the most important answer to their lynchings is to completely understand their different culture. At least, if we do, we will stop shooting at them in return when they show up on our lawns.
In 1924 the Klan had an estimated membership of 4.5 million and was able to openly march in Washington. Today, the Klan has no real open political power. The difference is not the Klan, but that the rest of our society has grown up. No attempt to eradicate the Klan by force would have succeeded. What happened is that people eventually saw them for what they are. If the Federal goverment had tried to eradicate the Klan by invading Alabama, many people who would not have considered joining them would have supported them. Violence used against them was their recruiting tool.
Actually, we caught him.
My bad, Rich. I should have checked additional sources. When?
My bad, Rich. I should have checked additional sources. When?
Two years ago
His trial ended 3 months ago.bruce - they were alerted as soon has he left the building as far as i'm aware,
Left home on the way to work that morning?
with the clients and work they do they have to be ultracareful about this stuff.
I hope to fuck your talking about violating client/attorney privilege and not business concerns. :eyebrow:
Two years ago
His trial ended 3 months ago.
Thank you. Short term memory? Who? Me? Its a nuisance sometimes. :mg:
At any rate, at large or behind bars, the point remains the same.
In 1924 the Klan had an estimated membership of 4.5 million and was able to openly march in Washington. Today, the Klan has no real open political power. The difference is not the Klan, but that the rest of our society has grown up. No attempt to eradicate the Klan by force would have succeeded. What happened is that people eventually saw them for what they are. If the Federal goverment had tried to eradicate the Klan by invading Alabama, many people who would not have considered joining them would have supported them. Violence used against them was their recruiting tool.
Right on the money.
So how do we get Islamists to reform their society?
Don't tell me what we don't do to achieve this, tell me what we DO.
If I knew that, I'd be telling them, not arguing on a message board. But I don't have to be a doctor to tell someone to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
If you shot yourself in the foot, you would not be as lame as that reply.
Mark Steyn agrees that reformation via the moderate side of Islam is the right answer, but contrary to some people on this thread, he says to do that one must be politically incorrect, and link Islam to terrorism:
Why are we surprised that "Muslim moderates" rarely speak out against the evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep assuring us there's no problem? It requires great courage to be a dissenting Muslim in communities dominated by heavy-handed imams and lobby groups that function effectively as thought-police.
Yet all you hear from Mr Paddick is: "Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here." This is the same approach, incidentally, that the authorities took in their long refusal to investigate seriously the 120 or so "honour killings" among British Muslims.
Just as the police did poor Muslim girls no favours by their excessive cultural sensitivity, so they're now doing the broader Muslim community no favours. The Blair-Paddick strategy only provides a slathering of mindless multiculti fudge topping over the many layers of constraint that prevent Islam beginning an honest conversation with itself.
...
But the coaxing is what counts - wooing moderate Muslims into reclaiming their religion. We can take steps to prevent Islamic terrorists killing us, most of the time. But Islamic terrorists will only stop trying to kill us when their culture reviles them rather than celebrates them.
There are signs in the last week's Muslim newspapers, in London and abroad, that some eminent voices are beginning to speak out. At such a moment, Britain should be on the side of free speech and open debate. Instead, the state is attempting to steamroller through a grotesque law at the behest of already unduly influential Islamic lobby groups. One of its principal effects will be to inhibit Muslim reformers. Shame on us for championing Islamic thought-police over Western liberty.
If you shot yourself in the foot, you would not be as lame as that reply.
What the hell am I going to say? There
is no magic bullet that can fix everything, but the first step is to stop doing things that make it worse. If I don't have an alternative, that doesn't mean that the current course is correct; to say that is to say "We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this." The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. If digging is all you know how to do, that's not a reason to keep digging; you still need to stop.
And of course religions should not be exempt from laws, whether it's Muslim honor killings or faith-healing child abuse. The honor killings should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but military occupation of Muslim neighborhoods in London, or random arrests of Muslims, would not be the way to go.
OK, what are we doing that appears to you to be making things worse?
Ok--(I don't belong here, I'm not anywhere near as well-versed on this as all of you, but I am middle America and I'm not as stupid as you think, so--ok....) :2cents:
You want politically incorrect? How's this---the Muslim world is 1,000 years behind the rest of the civilized world. At least. And they don't produce anything. To me, those are major, MAJOR flaws that won't be corrected until enough time has passed as such to render the culture/religion "aware"--my niece married a fresh-off-the-jihad Pakistani man. You all should get a load of HIM! How many of YOU have it in the family??? Anyone??
Yes, he's one man. No, he's not inclusive of the entire region/religion. Don't insult me. But he IS completely unwilling to "adopt" this country as his own------so, why the fuck is he HERE?????*
*I've the answer, but it's waaaay off the thread.
Now back to your arguement....
And they don't produce anything.
They don't have to. They've got oil. :)
The real solution is long term, but I think it's what happened in Russia:
Give them all cable tv and internet access and eventually their kids will demand western culture.
[QUOTE=dar512]They don't have to. They've got oil. :)
[/QUOTE} ...ok, WE did not always NEED their oil. They've NEVER produced anything except religious nut cases. If the world didn't need oil, they'd be Darfur. Period. No one would give a shit what they did or how many of them were killed.
OK, what are we doing that appears to you to be making things worse?
1) Invading Iraq, thus retroactively proving in many Middle Eastern eyes everything the terrorists have been claiming about us.
2) Our eternal dance of supporting corrupt governments if they will provide short term political advantage. This is not, of course, specific to the Middle East. It is just as harmful in Central and South America.
3) Until very recently, we supported Israel's position no matter what it was (I think we should always support Israel, but sometimes we would be supporting them better by not supporting some of their individual policies). This is something I think Bush has actually improved our position on. If US diplomacy had anything to do with settlement withdrawal, then good on him.
Good point, Brianna. And you have to wonder if all our oil money wasn't flowing into the Mideast, would they the nutcases be able to afford to fly around and plant bombs hither and thither?
So support our troops - get rid of your suvs and humvees.
So support our troops - get rid of your suvs and humvees.
Thank you.
I'm way, waaaaay below an SUV. I'm nowhere near a humvee. I'm a Ford kind of woman. While other RN's bought Lexus and the like, I raised two kids with all the opportunity I could muster. I think I got the better deal. My oldest is enjoying what we jokingly call "lawyer camp" at University of Cincinnati. He won via an essay he wrote (and he was identified as "gifted" as a youngster). The younger, Danny, just finished an elite sports camp. I feel lucky.
Way to go sons of Brianna!
I feel lucky.
Not luck, I'm sure. I bet it was more like lots of hard work and love.
According to the break-in on the noon news, buncha houses were raided in a "Muslim Section" of Leeds and arrests made.
There is now also speculation that the four bombers died in the attacks, although the reporters are not yet saying "suicide bombers" as there was also information that the bombs were triggered using cellphones as timing devices, like the Spanish train bombs.
I wonder, though, if there is insufficient Islamic fervor on the part of the youth of Britain, and those who carried the bombs thought they were merely going to place them at some location and have the bombs go off later?
There's also the possibility of an unsuspecting suicide bomber...
Abdul: We drop the bomb and then pretend we're tourists.
Akbar: Hey Abdul, why is the bomb ringing?
Bomb: Dumbasses... *boom*
So how do we get Islamists to reform their society?
Don't tell me what we don't do to achieve this, tell me what we DO.
I have a couple of suggestions too.
1 -- Fight the hype. When you hear news event Islamofascist dah dee dah...just subtract the hype part. This has postitive effects. You still get to prosecute a crime as in the honor killings, as is just. You starve the recruiters of a little bit of oxygen each time you don't run around in circles flapping on about how the "the Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!". You train yourself to respond to the facts, and not be distracted by the noise
2 -- Let them be. Let them fall of their own accord. If they believe they can make a functioning society and economy in the world of today, I say, let'em try. What happened to communism? We didn't bomb them into submission, we outplayed them. What makes you think we're unequal to this new foe?
This effort will require considerable restraint on our part in two major ways.
First--get out of their country. There are plenty of reasons to do so and plenty of places in the world where equally awful things happen that we are where we're NOT eyeball deep.
Second--major reduction in oil consumption. Since that's their major economic bulwark, we'd be hittin' 'em where they live: in the wallet. Beat them in the market. Fix their little red wagon, don't buy what their selling.
Look, if the can make go of it, fine. I, myself, don't believe in the righteousness of the coming American Hegemony. The world's big enough for other cultures. We already permit / tolerate / ignore / whitewash all sorts of societal differences in the name of national security / diversity / detente / benevolent disregard. There's room on the list for another.
3 -- Get to know them. Yeah, Kumbayah and all that sh*t. Seriously. Find a person, and get to know them. For this part to work, the person in question has to be a Muslim. But notice, they're a person first. Get to know another and then five or ten more. I'm leaving completely open what kind of Muslim-icity the person believes in. If they're moderate, surprise! You get to see moderate Islam in the flesh. If they're radical, bonus! Now's your chance to see how the other side thinks. And I get a golden opportunity to represent how my side thinks. I f*cking A believe that my way is better and I relish the chance to debate the issue on the merits. Notice this is possible in this scenario where you and another person have gotten to know each other as individuals. Presumably in a way that permits conversations, and the exchange of ideas.
This one is the compliment to suggestion number one. This is anti-hype, and much more representative of the way the world is. I'll give you an example. Bush gets a lot of press. We all talk about him, every day (maybe TMI, I'm a freakin news junkie). But consider how many people vs. presidents you know? Really, my life is influenced much much more by people who aren't the president. Like my boss, my family, the people I interact with every day, the people in my local community, the people in my cyber community, etc. The ones that affect me the most aren't the ones making the most news or even getting the most attention.
By getting past the loudness of what we hear and read in the media, we're able to make more informed judgements of how things really are. The map is not the terrain, but the terrain is what we must cover, regardless of what it says on the map. The hype is not the people, but it is the people with whom we must interact, and relying on a faulty map will lead to faulty decisions. Get to the truth. Get to know each other.
When you say "their country", which one do you mean?
Winds of Change debuts this Flash presentation showing all major attacks since al Q. Note when Mar 2003 is on the timeline. Previous to that are the attacks you can't blame on Iraq.
http://windsofchange.net/flashplayer.php?media=alqaeda&w=640&h=480bruce - this was a while ago.
GAh, breaking my self-imposed gag order.
BigV, this isn't about "people getting along" or "really understanding each other." It's a clash of very deeply held, almost hardwired values. To suggest to a devout follower of Islam that he overlook our R-rated movies, blasphemy, materialism, and support of the hated Jew while simultaneously letting his wife take off her veil, uncover her legs and get a job, just so we can stop fighting each other...it's ludicrous. Fighting the evil that we represent is what gets him into heaven. You think you can counter that with platitudes?
Are there Muslims who would welcome watered-down Islam? Sure, just as there are Christians who would prefer that their religion be no more influential than a verse on a greeting card. But until you convince the true islamic believer to water down their religion until it's palatable to the unbelievers (as we've done with Christianity in America), the answer to "can't we all just get along?" is, "No, we can't."
Previous to that are the attacks you can't blame on Iraq.
When you say "Iraq", which Iraq war do you mean?
But its tricky.
I find it hard to get to "really" know someone who actions, laws indicate his or her belief that I am a whore and an infidel that needs to die or at least be beaten, raped, and splashed with acid.
Thats like telling Emmet Till he just needed to be more respectful to the store owner.
I work with muslims, mostly its that 2nd generation immigrant kid that's stuck between cultures- mostly Sudanese and Somalian. Get that girl educated! Thats my subversive act. Give her Nancy Drew books!
I live one block from a Mosque. Again, recently immigrated African Muslims. We all shop at the Deli owned by the Lebanese Christian guy. I know there are good people, I also no there are sick and sad and powerful ideas out there and its a complex thing.
because you know, there's like, no Christian fundies that take up arms or anything noodle. And it's not like the vast majority of muslims particularly in western countries are moderate or anything. Yahuh. Fucking halfwit.
I've got a friend who is a fairly devout muslim woman, about my age, wears a tight back headscarf and long sleeves/trouser legs, looks gorgeous, unless someone told you why you'd think it was just fashion. She's studying law at a top London uni, hopes to become a judge one day. But don't let modern reality get in the way of your thinly viled racism and hatred, just keep beating that wardrum, I hope it makes you feel real good.
When you say "their country", which one do you mean?--clip
Well, according to our administration, ground zero for terrorist is Iraq. I think Iraq is a fine place to start. Why not let the citizens of that country do as they wish. Why would I want to
get Islamists to reform their society?
anyway?
They don't have to. They've got oil. :)
The real solution is long term, but I think it's what happened in Russia:
Give them all cable tv and internet access and eventually their kids will demand western culture.
Tou fucking ché
Not to mention The U.S. and its protegé: China.
"I'll have two orders of western culture please, super size them, and a side of me first."
mrnoodle,
I realize it strongly supports your case to say that, paraphrasing, Islam advocates destroying Jews. And I concede that there are certainly a lot of Muslims who dislike Jews. Probably a lot in Palestine.
But, as we've covered a lot in this thread, there's a difference between individuals who identify with a group holding an opinion and the doctrine which defines that group holding an opinion. And, although I skipped a few hundred posts in the middle, I believe you're saying that Islam, as a doctrine, is anti-Semitic. Not just particular Muslims.
If that's the case, I'm very curious as to what you base this statement on. A professor of mine once said that there really isn't just one Islam, but more a bunch of different islams. Sunni and Shi'ite, yeah, and enough subdivisions of that that it's really a difficult thing to count.
So what have you read that makes you think Islam hates Jews? Because I simply don't agree.
The thing about anger is it is ALWAYS righteous. Get yourself really worked up, I mean literally seeing red, throbbing liver angry.
Then just stop and see how you feel
physically.
I bet you feel fucking ALIVE! All systems GO! BOO YAH! That anger is a self stimulated drug, it feeds your ego and lets you know that you are a real live force to be reckoned with, (motherfucker optional).
I know when I heard about the London bombing I was so angry I wanted to deport every one even remotely towel head looking to some desert where we'd turn the sand to glass. Make Dresden seem like a cool breeze.
What would that do? Anger, hatred et al would still be right where it has always resided. It is a seed that grows in our hearts.
Can I love the terrorists? Not hardly, especially when I feel like chopping my neighbor's dog to pieces and beating her to death with one of its legs when she lets it shit on my lawn and tries to walk away nonchalantly.
But what frosts me more than anything is how our various governments and media use these events as get rich quick schemes. Pearl Harbor wasn't the first time a government has used it citizens as pawns, it won't be the last. What made 9/11 so disturbing was that the pawns were civilians.
It might be informative to anyone who cares about 9/11 to read Michael Ruppert's work on the subject. Two websites:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
http://www.copvcia.com/
He has a book called "Crossing the Rubicon"
None of what he has to say is for the faint of heart or those who really just want to feel righteous and point the finger at towel heads.
Despite all the extremely well thought out and heartfelt responses to this thread I don't feel any closer to a solution to the problem. I sure haven't added anything. I just feel that it is important to own our responsibility for the anger we create and keep alive.
In an odd way this thread is realted to the belly flop IotD. The anger is like the belly flop, we're all gettin wet, we think it may be fun to jump in and try out our splash, and we all keep gettin wet.
The thing about anger is it is ALWAYS righteous. Get yourself really worked up, I mean literally seeing red, throbbing liver angry.
Then just stop and see how you feel physically.
I bet you feel fucking ALIVE! All systems GO! BOO YAH! That anger is a self stimulated drug, it feeds your ego and lets you know that you are a real live force to be reckoned with, (motherfucker optional)
Yeah, anger DOES have that aspect to it, doesn't it?
At this very moment I am in a state of sheer rage over something going on in my personal life and the 4th of July don't have nothing on me! I am furious and rightfully so! My anger does pinwheels and shooting stars across the heavens and it is
just! Oh, so just! When that rollcall up yonder is finally shouted out, there's not a doubt in my mind that God and Jehovah and Buddha and Mohammed will all thunder out in unison, "Marichiko, you are so right, and, Asshole, you are SO wrong!"
(*sigh*) A truely encouraging, uplifting thought! We now return you to your regularly scheduled life...
So, lets just say, hypothetically, that since I am already on the side of the avenging angels, I decide that Asshole's entire family is as wrong as he is and I bet anything they're up to no good, too, and besides Buddha whispered in my ear one night to do it, and I noticed that this one person Asshole is related to is very unkind to his dog, so one night I sneak out and cut the brake lines on his car, and next day he has a horrible accident. Not to be outdone, Asshole's 3rd cousin twice removed vows vengence for this act, so he slips some arsenic in my dear old Aunt Elsa's afternoon tea, and we're having fun now!
See where I'm going? Its that same old truism, hatred only begets hate.
When will we ever learn?
because you know, there's like, no Christian fundies that take up arms or anything noodle.
Lessee. How many Christian Fundies have blown up anything lately? (you're not allowed to count Bush, as I suspect you want to ...)
Eric Rudolph is pretty much it (2 dead, 120 or so injuries in multiple incidents), and then there were two guys who shot abortion clinic doctors in separate incidents, Paul Hill (the first one, in FL), and James Kopp (the guy who shot the doc with a scoped rifle in NY).
Posting the 10 Commandments in a public place isn't terrorism. Yet.
How many followers of the Prophet have blown something up?
Do I think that this is behavior condoned by the majority of Muslims? I like to think not. I hope not, anyway. I've worked with quite a few Muslims, as well as non-Muslim Arabs (including Egyptian and Syrian Christians) and know that they aren't out to get me/us. They are as confused as we are over what's happened.
There have been 8 deaths related to abortion doctors or clinics since '93. There have been many more attacks and attempted murders. My point is that there are militant, violent and irrational elements of both religions but that most followers of both are perfectly reasonable and moderate people.
8. Sad, but, ooooh! (that's meant as a sarcastic sort of "ooooh")
Looking at things without doing math I think that the percentages are very different when you look at Christians:Christian Terrorists vs. Muslims:Muslim Terrorists.
The body counts sure as hell are different.
Just slightly offside of this topic ... who else thinks the British Broadcast News ban on the word "terrorist" is absurd?
differences in number of conflicts too. There is a reason. Chechnya is probably the classic example. Chechnya is a nationalist conflict that became a flashpoint for islamic fundamentalism, war breeds war. The current crop is Islamic militants were mostly trained during the afghan conflict, their side being heavily propped up by the US. The enxt generation are being trained in Iraq and once again, Afghanistan.
Haven't seen many warzones in the bible belt recently.
(raises hand)
and they've retroactively edited their initial coverage of the bombing.
Of course there are moderate muslims. but they're not in charge. I'm not beating a wardrum, either (at least not in that post). I'm saying that we are dealing with a culture that values martyrdom, and that western civilization has always been a very appealing target for that martyrdom, because it represents everything that is hateful to a follower of Islam.
As a christian, I am opposed to lots of things that I consider morally wrong. But I don't strap on a bomb and detonate it on a bus. Who knows? Maybe I would, if my culture had pounded it into my head since birth that suicide bombing was a glorious and honorable thing to do. Or if I was so poor that I did it for the bounty that my country's leader would pay my family.
Just because the terrorist enemy doesn't wear matchy uniforms and have a big Kremlin to point to as the embodiment of the values it represents doesnt' make it any less organized, or any less widespread and dangerous. We should still approach it militarily, because it's far too big for criminal court. We couldn't bring the Nazis to task for their war crimes until they had been gutted militarily.
Incidentally, I expect that when muslim culture finally breaks the chains of its extremist leadership, it will be because muslim women. The women are the ones with the most to gain from our efforts in the mideast, and they will play the most crucial role in ensuring that their children don't share their fathers' hatred.
but they can't do it until we kill the people holding them down.
not in change of what exactly and where?
Because killing leaders and replacing them with US friendly ones has such a history of success in the ME and all.
8. Sad, but, ooooh! (that's meant as a sarcastic sort of "ooooh")
Looking at things without doing math I think that the percentages are very different when you look at Christians:Christian Terrorists vs. Muslims:Muslim Terrorists.
The body counts sure as hell are different.
How quickly they forget:
Oklahoma City bombing carried out by whacko Christian sect member, Timothy McV. 164 deaths including children
Jonestown - 909 dead thanks to another whacko Christian sect whose leader commanded all to die and die they did.
And then there was whacko Waco and the Branch Davidians - 74 dead
You were saying?
Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian Terrorist. He had some contacts within the Aryan Identity Movement, but that was about as far as that went.
The people at Waco were killed by the BATF, in a standoff that likely wouldn't have happened if the BATF hadn't been actively attempting to provoke the whackos. The Branch Davidians did not engage in terrorist activities, even if they did attempt to isolate themselves from society at large, they weren't strapping bombs to their children and putting them on school busses.
Ditto for the People's Temple. Crazy Cult, but not terrorists.
In your last two examples, few outside of the cult members died ... Congressman Leo Ryan and the folks at the airport that Jim Jones, in his paranoia, sent people to kill which also triggered the koolaid distribution, and the BATF agents at Waco were fired on as they were attacking the compound.
And the numbers still aren't adding up.
Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian Terrorist. He had some contacts within the Aryan Identity Movement, but that was about as far as that went.
He was a member of some whacko Christian group. Forget the name, but I posted it back somewhere in this interminable thread.
Ditto for the People's Temple. Crazy Cult, but not terrorists.
900 murder/suicides is terrifying enough for me. Not all those folks went tamely to the koolaide pitcher. Some were forced.
He was a member of some whacko Christian group. Forget the name, but I posted it back somewhere in this interminable thread.
No, he wasn't See paragraph 2.
Aryan Nations, formerly of Hayden Lake, Idaho, was a center of Christian Identity thought. The Christian Identity movement, which identifies whites as God's chosen and encourages the faithful to follow the biblical example of Phineas by becoming instruments of God's vengeance.
Sounds like inspiration by a whacko Christian outfit to me, but we can agree to disagree if you like.
If he thought Donald Duck had told him to do it, that wouldn't make him part of a Disney movement.
Find and replace:
Donald Duck -> Allah
Disney -> Muslim
...and you get two very different things. Mohammed is a bit higher up the ladder than Phineas (who the hell?) or Donald, as far as influence and number of people willing to make bottle rockets out of themselves.
I thought we had already established that not all Muslims were bombers. Why are we still repeating it?
Ok--(I don't belong here,~~snip) ....
Bullshit.
Yes, he's one man. No, he's not inclusive of the entire region/religion. Don't insult me. But he IS completely unwilling to "adopt" this country as his own------so, why the fuck is he HERE?????*
*I've the answer, but it's waaaay off the thread.
Now back to your arguement....
Not off thread. That's what we need, personal knowledge of what and why these people feel. Even if it's just your opinion from personal contact. ;)
Anyone read the news this morning about the bombers? Sounds like three, at least, were middle-class young men that got recruited on a visit home to Pakistan. Sounds like all of these men had prospects. One was a newlywed with a daughter.
I just don't get it.
Talk about religous extremism - what else would convince a promising 18 or 22 year old that they need to blow themselves up for the good of their cause? Genius. Sign me up.
That's the funny thing about religion, it doesn't require anything to make sense except conceptually and is based on authoritative revelatory doctrine.
Once more for clarity's sake. <b>Religion doesn't have to make sense.</b>
Talk about religous extremism - what else would convince a promising 18 or 22 year old that they need to blow themselves up for the good of their cause?
If we could figure that out, and put it towards some useful purpose, you know, like selling blue jeans or cars or something, we could make a goddamn mint.
Wow! I go on vacation for a week and come back to find this thread still limping along! Egads!
I'll say two things to get myself back into this thread and into trouble.
First, organized religion is the kiss of death. Anytime you have a bunch of people who believe in something get together, you get nothing but trouble. Even if you have a group that starts out with the purest intentions, there will be inevitibly and smaller group who will disagree with the larger and break-out. Christians, muslims, budists, cultists, you name it, they got 'em. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian who believes in what the bible teaches, but I read it for what it says, not what it should say. I don't look at chapters and verses and try to second guess and make up my own definition or meaning behind it. I don't get caught up in all the machanics of when to kneel, what to say, what to do. If you read the bible, there is nothing that really says, "go out and kill unbelivers" and I'm sure the koran is the same way.
Second, I'll say it again at the risk of sounding like a broken record...
the terrorists won't stop until they are ready to stop. Wheather through re-education, or bordem with bowing up everyone, they have to want to stop. All the raids, bombs, and operation "whatevers" will not convince them it's time to stop.
Well, blowing themselves to bits doesn't seem to be a deterrent. I'm guessing it will be awhile before they weary of Jihad.
Well, blowing themselves to bits doesn't seem to be a deterrent. I'm guessing it will be awhile before they weary of Jihad.
Wearying is exactly the right word. There is a recent poll from the
Pew Research Center showing that Muslim countries' support for violence is falling.
This is a good article that links to many articles on the subject.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/dailyUpdate.htmlFriday, July 15
Another conspiracy theory
We all make assumptions. Four guys were carrying bombs that blew up. They knew each other, they had travelled together that day, twoAsians from Leeds, an Asian friend from Leeds who had moved to Luton and a West Indian guy who had recently arrived in Aylesbury.
The four men joined the Thamesmead train from Luton to London Kings Cross carrying rucksacks. They looked, said a police man who has seen CCTV footage from Kings Cross Main Hall," as though they were going on a walking holiday", smiling joking.
They split up, three to die within some 20 minutes, the fourth an eighteen year old another hour later on a bus where he was sat on the back seat upstairs.
All of them were carrying bombs that killed them.
You know that. Did they ?
Consider this news item from the Scotsman December 11th 2004.
Mohammed Hanif, 31, and Abdul Mateen, 22, from Deeplish in Rochdale were caught in Glasgow with 10kg of the drug, worth ?1 million in street deals. Hanif claimed that Mateen had driven him to Glasgow to collect ?500 owed to him for a car by another Asian. Strathclyde Police drug squad detectives, acting on a tip-off, arrested the pair and found the drugs in a car boot.The men said they knew nothing about the drugs.
[color=#0000ff]http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1162&id=1453462004[/color]
Drugs are a massive business, they are moved into and around the country endlessly, apparently with minimal disruption, 10Kg of heroin – (5 bags of granulated sugar) are worth ?1Mn at street level.
What do we know ?
We know the bombs went off. We know the bombers did not act alone. Somebody somewhere sent them on their deadly mission.
So someone, somewhere, wanted to send four young Asian / Muslim men with primed and timed bombs onto London Transport.
Imagine being faced with this task. You are young management graduate , student officer , war gamer, member of a revolutionary Islamic jihad movment, a member of a state sponsored security organisation in the UK, Israel, the USA ?
Think out of the box.
Say you make it your business to get alongside the unemployed, the vulnerable, rebellious, anti-authoritarian youth. “ You want some money, you want to be in on the scene”.
“Take this package, meet a man – come back ?100 cash. No questions”
“ Hire a car take this package, get a friend drive to this place, meet a man – come back collect ?500 cash ”
He doesn’t look in the bag, these guys play hard ball. Take it. Deliver it. Get paid. Go away forget the man. Forget the face. Wait for the call. Everybody does it man. Seen the barred outside doors in Beeston. Inside as well. Drugs.Drugs. Play some football, in the park , cricket in season, go to the mosque like dad wants me to.
“ Take the car, meet a man all take one of the bags deliver to these 3 places – come back collect ? 1000. Cash”
…and so on. Maybe he even fits in a trip for himself, for others to Pakistan. To go to a madrassa ? To see the BIG man in Pakistan where it all comes from, seeping out of Afghanistan. Maybe go on Haj – that costs money, but he we have it.
Soon enough your man has bought himself , like one of the bombers a brand new red Mercedes. He’s not bought a car, he’s bought prestige, he’s a man on the street – everyone knows by what method, but hey he stands his round and his famil are very generous.
...and so on.
Then eventually we have a big deal, hire the cars, drive here, meet the man, take the train , take the four underground trains, the man will meet you, back on the train, back in the car, back here - ?XXXX cash – luvvly jubbly.
Another big deal
Another
Then the BIG deal.
They’ve done this before. The bags, don’t look, don’t ask. 2 grand apiece and there’s going to be another run next week. Meet back as usual in the Starbucks near the British Library. 2 o-clock … and don’t switch your bloody phone on or use it.
But the don’t come back. One mother, anxious like mums are, is worried, her boy has been to London before, like he says, he’s never late for his mum. A good boy, he’s only young, maybe he has got in with some bad boys, been caught shoplifting but they all do it – he’ll grow out of it. Give the Police a call. It’s late. He should be in bed asleep at his age.
He is asleep. Forever.
Far fetched ? Find a fact that doesn’t fit.
Of course all sorts of people with all sorts of agendas are pointing their finger at Islamic fundamentalists – Al Quaida, Al Johnson, Al Read maybe. That’s an agenda that supports, a state of perpetual war, perpetual terror, a need for more legislation to restrict liberties, control freedoms, issue what will be (effectively) internal passports, or what we called in the days of apartheid, Pass books.
Now it’s a big jump to say that the main agents of this criminal endeavour are agents of a state – well take your pick, Israel, UK, USA or a religious grouping, Muslims, Zionists, Methodists – freelance embedded warriors in the State’s apparatus, MI6, Mossad, CIA.
It does show that there is more than one way of getting 4 young men on London Transport, whilst G8 is on, whilst President Bush is a guest in the country, to blast 50 odd travellers to their deaths. Of course you kill the couriers.
Dead men. Tell no tales.
Anyone read the news this morning about the bombers? Sounds like three, at least, were middle-class young men that got recruited on a visit home to Pakistan. Sounds like all of these men had prospects. One was a newlywed with a daughter.
I just don't get it.
I do...They were recruited by one
Bush's operatives to stir up hate for "terrorists" and try to drum up support for Blair. :idea:
Another conspiracy theory
I made a similar, but much less detailed, speculation in
post #161.
lcanal seems right on. his system wouldn't have the problems with last minute cold feet, change of heart, etc. The cost of brainwashing someone willing to die is a lot greater than worknig within the paradigm of easy cash
LCanal - doesn't fit the profile of the bombers, all radicalised by various factors, all met at a single radical mosque, one talked of martyrdom openly.
Any talk of closing borders and starting deportations Jag?
Wow,
here's someone who has gone to the far end of "they'll hate us no matter what we'll do, so it doesn't matter what we do" mentality:
(What do we do if terrorists get a nuke and use it on the US?)
"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.
"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.
"Yeah," Tancredo responded.
But it's OK. He was just shootin' the breeze...
The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."
But hey, what would be the downside? They all hate us anyway. It's not like they'd hate us more if we bombed Mecca. They're fighting us now, and we haven't!
Some years ago, one simple example was posted of how terrorism could so easily undermine most of NYC. I had asked UT to delete it after a short time because terrorism (if it really existed as Fatherland Security claims) could so easily do major damage. Why is the damage not happening? Maybe because terrorism is not (yet) the threat as hyped by so many Orange Alerts (due, in part, to information from torture) AND maybe because when the CIA sends a PDB warning of a real and immenent attack, the president now understands when someone reads it to him.
Meanwhile, the NY Times discusses what has been fairly common knowledge for years (and was part of my 'deleted' example).
From the NY Times of 20 July 2005 Who's Watching the Underwater Tunnels?
The reasons for concern are straightforward. One vulnerability assessment after another conducted since Sept. 11, 2001, by or on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has placed the underwater tunnels at the top of the list of critical infrastructure.
The 14 tunnels form a vital network and are the product of varied construction methods spanning decades. The tunnels link four of the city's five boroughs under three bodies of water - the East River, the Harlem River and Newtown Creek - and range in length from 650 to 5,489 feet.
It looks like the British police killed a
Brazilian electrician with no known connections to Islam.
Like I said.
There was a clip on our news the other night. The cops had chased a guy in a car finally stopping him and pinning his car to a guard rail with a cruiser.
The guy goes out the passenger window, drops 15 feet to the grass, runs across the grass to a high chain link fence and climbs over it.
So now the chase starts again. They got him but tied up considerable manpower for some time.
They had a clear shot when he was climbing the fence...should have taken it. :mad:
It looks like the British police killed a Brazilian electrician with no known connections to Islam.
...who was running from police, wearing an overcoat on a summer day.
I do appreciate the fact that they are looking into. When
NYPD cops shot a man 41 times in 1999, before there were issues of bombings, and without any immediate danger to the public, the response was business as usual.
I wonder if his work visa was expired?
Hello infidels,
Had the brief opportunity to post here and just wanted to say......
You will all die violently and have no virgins to fuck in the after life.
Have a nice day,
Saddam
Good grief, Slang's become a Bush troll. :(
...who was running from police, wearing an overcoat on a summer day.
hmmm..
Documents and photographs leaked to ITV News also confirmed that Mr de Menezes did not run from the police, as had been reported, had used his Tube pass to enter the station, rather than vault the barrier, and had taken a seat on the train before being grabbed by an officer.
He was wearing a light denim jacket and not as previously reported a padded coat which could have concealed explosives.With some 15 pages of exchanges on this thread, I've read some, skipped some and scanned some - which may mean that I unwittingly repeat someone else's observations - hopefully not.
Interesting that a large number of the conversations reference the extent to which the muslim/islam culture as a whole bears responsibility for the London bombings. I am, however, inclined to think in a different direction.
I don't know if I am alone amongst the UK contingent to this forum, but although I was understandably shocked at the horror and the devastation of the bombing, the fact that it had finally happened wasn't quite the surprise it might have been. Contrastingly, I remember that I learned about the WTC disaster while on a one day cycle trip in France (that's not meant to be humorous - it just happens to be true) and I simply did not believe what I was being told when it was revealed that two planes had crashed into the WTC towers and one that they had collapsed – the whole thing was beyond comprehension. In the case of the London bombings we had been led through media reporting and editorial to expect something. Added to this we had experienced so many alerts and warnings already that there was a certain inevitability about it. Maybe that also has something to do with the 'British resolve' in this case - a sort of: 'Oh, it's happened – we wondered when it would - we'd better get on with our lives as usual - wonder when it will happen again?'
How do we get to the position of making this reaction? Beyond the media element, it’s almost that we have been so well-prepared to expect it. Our current society and social structure in Britain almost encourages it (and I don't mean that as saying we have too many different races and religions here). I've mentioned elsewhere on this site how our government has moved the goalposts - so many times that you really cannot recognise the playing field now. We have no control over our borders so those with both good and bad intentions may come and go as they please; the family, and the discipline and structure that goes with it, has been discouraged through legislative changes that make single parenthood attractive financially and socially; educational standards have fallen and show little signs of improving; our benefits system may be (and is) easily and readily abused; our courts seem to be powerless to bring the guilty to justice ( be they youths or adults) and even our laws seem to contradict each other (certainly since the adoption of the European Human Rights Act). There is more but it all adds up to an erosion of standards, understanding, responsibility and fairness - overall: hope.
No wonder then that the young may be enticed to act as messengers in the scenario portrayed so vividly and realistically by Lcanal (entry #199). And even if that is not true the extremist preachers (who as I have said can come and go – I use ‘can’ instead of ‘could’ because no one believes that the new terrorist legislation will make a real difference) have a sufficient source of willing and gullible recruits on which to draw as a result of the foregoing to produce those they can convince of the evil of the free society and the difference they can make to rid the world of such unbelievers – even with the end result being death by suicide they are given a purpose and a value that they simply cannot find elsewhere.
I firmly believe that it is only a few that are responsible for this atrocity. That we should find them and punish them by whatever rules and means our society proposes is correct. We should certainly not condemn an entire creed and culture because of the actions of a few – if we do then, we are little better ourselves. At the heart of the solution is starvation and isolation of the extremist. This means denying them the recruits that can so easily be obtained in the current social climate – to do that we need to give the young people concerned a separate purpose that alienates the life (wrong word under the circumstances) on offer elsewhere - and demonstrating that the doctrine the extremists preach is corrupt, evil and against the true path of Islam (we have the support of the general Islamic population and following in this respect).
Man tends to upset the balance of society when he meddles with it. The majority prefer a balance, but there are and always will be extremes. In life generally, and in nature, the extremes tend to be isolated so that they can present little harm leaving the balance of the majority preserved and protected – one only has to look at this forum to see how extremist views (sorry UG and mrnoodle - nothing personal) are the most rigorously challenged. Aggression against the whole is not the solution and never will be. There are plenty of examples around this planet where Muslim, Christian and Jew live in harmony alongside each other - in fact I would say that rather this is the norm, and it is unquestionably the exception to the norm that requires attention.
In British Cambridge Evening News, Bruce Lait, a survivor of the 7/7 says the bomb was UNDER his train (London’s Aldgate East) because the hole was coming out the floor.
Another witness, Mark Honigsbaum, said the same in the Guardian.
Members of the British 9/11 Truth Campaign (
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/) have checked on chronology of the 7/7 and conclued that the official one's is impossible.
The 4 terrorists taken in picture couldn't reach King’s Cross station on time.