Attack in London Today

I just wanted to make a similar remark about Lash's

Quote:

People like you will be seeing that the world is no longer willing to listen to apologists and equivocateurs as they try to water down the outrageous murder in our streets in the name of a little understanding of Islamic mores.

They WILL be held accountable, as you have already seen. Their behavior WILL be announced, analyzed and condemned.

as nimh did, then noticed panzade's text analysis ... and now I'm -again- at the very same point nimh is.

(Although, I have been condemmed more than once :wink: )

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I'm just wondering about people who WILL be held accountable, whether thats anything like people who've gone too far...

I mean, I know it says next that theyll merely be "announced, analysed and condemned", but I dunno - "WILL be held accountable" implies more than just a verbal outing to me ... where I come from ...

Will be held accountable...will be expected to make an accounting for.... will have to explain...

Also did not lump nimh in the the apo's and equi's as Pan put it--he hasn't yet given me enough evidence to categorize him in that way. I can't imagine anyone here thinks I don't speak plainly. If I was convinced nimh was a so and so, I wouldn't have left it to a guess.

Think--

I was thinking I was being benevolently fair minded not to put the Chechen terrorism in the Muslim column. I could have made a case for it--but I'm not trying to rack up points on either side. I am sincerely interested in who is doing what. I was wondering what other people thought re culpability.

Knowing what you do about the relationship between Russia (current Russia) and the Chechens--is there one side who bears responsibility for the problem there, is it a little one-sided, or are they equally to blame?

I guess there are some of you who are circling wagons and are convinced I'm trying to make some unfair, one-sided case against Muslims. I'm not. I am pretty convinced they are responsible for more violence than any other group--but I'm more interested in finding out what is accurate than being right.

No one else has provided any information.

Wouldn't this have been what you are scanning for nimh and Walter:

"People like you, apo's and equi's, will see that the world is no longer willing to listen to YOU...."

0 Replies

Good post Lash -

I honestly think that the Muslims should be deeply concerned for thier 'kind' (my scare quotes - for lack of better term). It is VERY ugly.

However, I also think we get, in America, bombarded with a bad light being cast on Muslims. I have so many good Muslim friends and students that are just sick and sick of hearing people dying, blowing themselves up, and the like. They ARE doing something about it - they preach tolerence in thier mosques, the try to root out thier 'clergy' that could become recruited and get to them first with the positive message of Islam.

It sucks. I am just sick of everyone killing in the name of God (by any other name). No wonder there are so many athiests that point to religion for thier reasons. Sucks.

TTF

0 Replies

Finn,
This is the alternative:
We want to preserve our way of life, sticking our stick wherever the hell we want to stick it. After all, this is America, god-damn it. If those places where we stick our stick turn out to be problematical, we'll just torch 'em, and destroy 'em in their entirety. We'll then merely call it "peace," and "the ideology of hope and compassion."

The statement, "today's terrorism is a result of yesterday's foolhardy and venal actions," is facile and glib to someone who cannot accept the responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It's a symptom of sociopathy.

The suspects in the London bombing were drawn to the cause, reaction against our foolhardy and venal actions, through religious extremism.

We should bring to justice those responsible for terrorist acts. At the same time we should redress our own wrongs and transgressions.

If young men of Pakistani origin were to be held to the moral strictures that bind America, then they'd be exculpated of their actions by the mere denial of acceptance of their responsibility thereof, the moral strictures of a sociopathic state.

I don't know what perfection is, Finn. I prefer to think of the goal as being the seeking of amendment and right action. It may begin for us with the acceptance of guilt and responsibility for our foolhardy and venal actions. You say, "If the answer to terrorism is to cease foolhardy and venal actions, we are all doomed." But, if the answer to terrorism is to continue foolhardy and venal actions, we are all doomed to a perpetual cycle of foolhardy and venal actions and terrorist reaction.

You continue to speak of deserts. I prefer to speak of actions and consequences.

I am advancing a set of rules that would leave the West amended for its foolhardy and venal actions, and would leave the West clear of reactionary violence. No foolhardy and venal actions, no reactions. It's quite simple. It begins with recognition of one's foolhardy and venal actions. For those unwilling to do so it comes off as merely glib.

Or, we can do what I've reposted above, the actions of a sociopathic society.

0 Replies

It is you, Finn, who is taking the morally relativistic stance when you question the applicability of the word "terrorism" to the actions of a group of people you sympathize with, Finn. The definition of terrorism, then, becomes as arbitrary as your whim. You don't sympathize with the Islamist terrorists? Surely then, they are terrorists. You sympathize with the allies of WWII? Surely then, their firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden weren't terrorism. As far as the French Resistance is concerned, from what I know, they targeted military personnel. Aren't they legitimate targets, non-non-combatants and what not? If they targeted civilians, then yes they were terrorists. How about the Irgun and LEHI, do you sympathize with them and their cause? If so, then surely, they weren't terrorist organizations, right Finn?

Your moral equivalency argument is a red herring. Apply the actions of these different groups to the definition of the word terrorism, i.e. the use of violence against civilians to achieve a political end, and not to your sympathies.

0 Replies

Quote:

Two-thirds believe London bombings are linked to Iraq war

Labour losing battle to convince public

Julian Glover, political correspondent
Tuesday July 19, 2005
The Guardian

Two-thirds of Britons believe there is a link between Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq and the London bombings despite government claims to the contrary, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today.
The poll makes it clear that voters believe further attacks in Britain by suicide bombers are also inevitable, with 75% of those responding saying there will be more attacks.

The research suggests the government is losing the battle to persuade people that terrorist attacks on the UK have not been made more likely by the invasion of Iraq.

According to the poll, 33% of Britons think the prime minister bears "a lot" of responsibility for the London bombings and a further 31% "a little".
Only 28% of voters agree with the government that Iraq and the London bombings are not connected.

The poll follows repeated efforts by the government to stress that al-Qaida attacks, including September 11, took place before, as well after, the invasion of Iraq.

Yesterday a government spokesman said the prime minister had told the cabinet that people who used Iraq to justify the London bombings had "a perverse view of Islam".

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, dismissed a thinktank report which argued that there was a link between the invasion of Iraq and the bombings.

The report by Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

Mr Straw said in Brussels yesterday: "I'm astonished Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies."

"The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the US, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."

But the Guardian/ICM poll shows the public believe that Britain's frontline role has made the country a more obvious target. And it shows that while Britons have reacted relatively calmly to the attacks earlier this month - with 83% saying they were no less likely to travel into central London and 75% saying they were just as likely to use the tube - the public does want the government to respond with new legislation.

A clear majority - 71% - want the government to exclude or deport from the UK foreign Muslims who incite hatred with only 22% believing such people should be allowed to live in the UK.

That may give some comfort to ministers as they seek to persuade opposition parties to support new laws making it an offence to incite terrorism.

But the poll also shows that despite the attacks, there is increasingly limited public support for ID cards.

Only 53% of those questioned said they believed ID cards should be brought in to help in the fight against terrorism - a fall on previous findings before and after the bombings.

Reflecting the relative cross-party unity that has dominated politics since the attacks, the poll also finds that Labour's poll lead remains almost unchanged on last month's Guardian/ICM findings.

Despite public unease about the prime minister's decision to support the invasion of Iraq, Labour has the support of 39% of voters (up one point on last month), the Conservatives 31% (no change) and the Liberal Democrats 23% (no change).

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,005 adults aged 18+ by telephone between July 15 and 17. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

Source

0 Replies

Thanks for post Walter, I bought the Independent today...

Amazing, exactly one month after 7/7, the Muslim Council of Britain has invited Sheikh Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a radical cleric to speak at the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester on 7/8 (thats 8/7 in the US).

This is a man who has supported suicide bombings saying "Allah has given the weak the power to turn their bodies into bombs"

He also supports killing homosexuals and adulterers (female only of course) and also recommends female genital mutilation (if their fathers wish it).

The Home Office (British interior ministry) is "considering whether to allow him entry"

CONSIDERING?

I would certainly invite him then lock him up under control order regulations for a very long time.

Why the difficulty? Well before the election in May this year, Ken Livingston Mayor of London invited the same guy over and publicly embraced him. But things were different then. 7/7 hadnt happened, and there was an election to win, and they were conscious of having seriously hacked off the Muslim vote, who traditionally vote Labour.

At the same time as Livingston was hugging Qaradawi, the Labour party was distributing posters featuring Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin (Conservative opposition) with references to their policies about "pigs might fly".

Nothing unusual in that one may say, until you understand the subtle anti semitic message designed to appeal to muslims. Most people would not understand the significance, but Muslims would see it straight away - Howard and Letwin are both Jewish.

So should Sheikh Yussuf al-Qaradawi be allowed over here? Or would it further upset our dear Ken, seen holding back the tears on 8 July as he spoke about the indiscriminate slaughter of ordinary Londoners?

ps I should make it clear the Labour party eventually withdrew the posters.

Qaradawi distinguishes between good suicide bombing (Tel Aviv) and bad suicide bombing (London).

0 Replies

That's easy - he shouldn't be let in.

Australia does it all the time, we won't let David Irving (he who denies the Nazi Holocaust) in.

Of course David Irving doesn't represent a community that can hand over safe seats in Parliament though so in that sense our government isn't being terribly brave. If your government does it then they are definitely being brave (I'm channelling Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister). "Oh a very brave decision Minister, very brave".

Seriously, Britain should have no compunction in telling this bloke he's wasting his time buying a plane ticket.

0 Replies

Well of course I agree GoodF

But we are not dealing with ordinary people here. These are senior figures holding important public office. Never underestimate their utter ruthlessness to avoid public embarrassment.

0 Replies

Or maybe he's being brought into the country to explain himself.

This may be wishful thinking on my behalf, and it probably is, but he'd probably be brought in and then face the angry stares of all those that see him for what he truly is. He wouldn't preach. He'd just stand there and answer question after angry question:

"How dare you preach this and that?"
"How could you preach this and that, when it clearly puts us all in a bad light and is against our religion?"

Wishful thinking? In a world were Sod's Law loves to happen every day, I think so.

0 Replies

I would love it if Qaradawi was totally shunned. But he wont be. He will be listened to in respectful silence, because he is the great Islamic scholar, and no ordinary muslim is going to tell him that what he preaches is against Islam.

[When he was last over in May, several protestors gathered outside the London assembly rooms including Peter Tatchell, gay rights activist. Tatchell for some inexplicable reason objected to Labour mayor Livinston entertaining a man who openly calls for queers to be killed or castrated. For his troubles he was of course roughed up by Qaradawi's people]

However, with a bit of luck, and at risk of causing embarrassment to Ken Livingston the government will deny him entry and hopefully tell him to go **** himself.

0 Replies

I remember the incident with Peter Tatchell, from memory he's originally Australian I think.

Let's hope the govt has some balls over this.

0 Replies

In his other thread,

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

It seems the type of Islamist most likely to commit a terrorist outrage are young male converts to Islam, or "ordinary" Muslims who suddenly become very religious in their teenage years.

I found this a valuable take on Yahoo News:

Quote:

Extremists Orbit Around Islam's Rebirth

0 Replies

There is certainly an aspect of radical islamism which takes belief completely outside of time and place.

I hope psychologists are trying to work out whats going on in these people's heads.

I read an article yesterday saying the london bombers originally came from a very tight knit society in Kashmir and were despised by the Punjabiis and other Pakistanis long before they came to the UK to be further despised. [Ill see if I can find it]

0 Replies

I have such a tough time with the word terrorist.

It seems, not relativistic, but subjective.

I think we want, in the west, to claim that terrorism happens "over there" and that there is a clear demarcation between our military and thier history and the bad guys.

I have yet to see a definition that does so.

Note that I am not talking about the average soldier in the military - I think those lines are a little cleaner - but what the U.S military does covertly is and has been either borderline or over the line. Historically you would have to call many our military actions and not intended for military attacks totally and not just to inflict casualties on the enemy. For instance, our dealings with the American Indians and the like.

Also to have this discussion is not to be an 'oppologist' as some have claimed on this borad and thread. That argument is extremist in nature - albiet extreme nationalism. I abhor all war and have trouble finding a good definition or example of just war.

TTF

0 Replies

Quote:

I abhor all war and have trouble finding a good definition or example of just war

I know this is just a bit off topic but Aquinas quotes St Augustine in I think it's the Summa Theologica on what is necessary for a "just war". It's an interesting read.

0 Replies

Talking about radicalising, extremist religious youth, I found this read unsettling this morning: a striking parallel, there.

Quote:

Colonist Youth Radicalises
'We obey only the divine laws, not yours'

by Ina Friedman
21 July 2005
Trouw (my translation)

Rarely has the sense of division in Israel been so great. [..]

Especially among the colonist youth, extremism is gaining ever more the upper hand. Violence against the state is permitted. "They do not recognize the judicial system", says Rammi Ovadja, commander of a jail near Tel Aviv where dozens of teenage demonstrators have been held for weeks now, because they refuse to sign the conditions for their release. "They rail, destroy the cells, yell at the wardens that they're dirty Arabs and Russian trash. They exhibit the behaviour of a criminal subculture. You don't expect something like that from children who were raised in good religious families. But if you try to talk with them about civil rights and duties, they look at you with despise and say: "We only obey to the divine laws, not to those of yours."

A police officer in Jerusalem says that some of her colleagues will no longer go near colonist girls. "They start to yell and spit if a male cop enters their cell. But they also don't hesitate to scratch and bite female officers who try to keep them in check."

Moderate colonist leaders are afraid that the 'civil disobedience campaign' will harm the colonists, will alienate them from the rest of the society. "We have to start thinking about the day after, when the state and the religious-zionist movement will have to live together again", says rabbi Benny Lau. [..]

0 Replies

Yet another Middle East theocracy in the making?

0 Replies

They're in the minority - Israel's still a pretty secular country. But that makes it all the more likely that, frustrated, they radicalise further. Lets just hope there wont be any more murdered prime ministers..

0 Replies

Everyone says "oh but of course they are a tiny minority"

who bomb transport networks in the name of Allah
who murder Prime Ministers
who terrorise doctors

well for me thats not good enough. The problem is not the tiny minority who resort to violence. The problem is the dangerous irrational illiberal ideas which passes itself off as religion.

It really is time to take on these stupid archaic fatuous ideas and DESTROY THEM. Just as we would a computer virus.

0 Replies

Attack in London Today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know