Terror Bombing in London

[Special K 0]

As much as it's been politicized, as many college profs talk about these people fighting the good fight, you have to realive these people are, in all actuality, with all the hyperbole ascribed, they are ACTUALLY evil. I personally think we shouldn't have gone into Iraq as a cold cost v return issue. And America DOES do fucked up shit, but every society that has gleefully killed civilians as warriors has been pretty much been given the name barbarians.

 

That said, I wish we could just assassinate motherfuckers like Bin Ladin. That's deemed inhumane. Rolling over Iraw is not? Israel has it dead on. Assassinate those fucks if they think they're so fucking righteous.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/08...lims/index.html

Arab view: 'Enough, enough'

Some Muslims fear backlash after UK bombs

By Octavia Nasr

CNN Senior Editor for Arab Affairs

 

Friday, July 8, 2005; Posted: 3:59 p.m. EDT (19:59 GMT)

 

(CNN) -- Arabs and Muslims in Britain and across the world expressed outrage at the terrorist attacks in London, with the dominant viewpoint summed up by one person who wrote on a Web site, "Enough ... enough."

 

The loud condemnation of the attacks that targeted civilians reverberated on the street, over the Internet, in newsrooms, and in Arab and Muslim seats of power.

 

Minority voices praised the attacks with anti-Western invective, but they were largely drowned out. On one popular Web site, one person wrote: "How can you gloat and thank God for terrorist acts that were committed in the name of God???? Shaaaaaaaaaaaame on you Muslims.

 

"Don't you know that Islam is growing in Europe??? What the heck are you doing mingling things up??? What you're doing has no logic and certainly doesn't fall under the good wisdom God has asked us to follow."

 

Still, some stated anger at what they say are brutal U.S. and British policies targeting Arabs and Muslims. And many expressed fears that a stretch of bad times is in store for Arabs and Muslims.

 

The London terror strikes, targeting three subway stations and a double-decker bus, killed more than 50 people wounded hundreds. Authorities are looking into the possibility of al Qaeda's involvement. London Police Commissioner Ian Blair said the attacks showed the "hallmarks of al Qaeda."

 

The September 11, 2001 al Qaeda attacks in the United States sparked some anger at Arabs and Muslims, which U.S. leaders and others worked to quickly counteract.

 

Officials from countries like Iraq and Iran issued condemnations of the strikes.

 

Some prominent Arab writers said the attacks were a reminder that efforts to fight terrorism were necessary.

 

Jihad al-Khazen, an op-ed columnist for the London-based pan-Arab Al-Hayat newspaper, wrote: "Such criminal terror acts prove that no measure is enough to fight terrorism.

 

"Actions that governments take to fight terrorism are totally justified because protecting life is a lot more important than protecting civil liberties."

 

He said he was saddened "that there are people in our Arab world that continue to sympathize with terrorism."

 

"This is our sick reality and it doesn't help anyone to pretend this mentality doesn't exist. One can't ignore the fact that Arab governments didn't act early on to crush the extreme movements growing in our midst."

 

He criticized the United States and Britain, saying he hoped they would change policies that fostered "hatred around the world and make it easy for groups like al Qaeda to recruit and execute terror attacks."

 

On the Arabic-language TV network Al Jazeera, Mohammed Amara -- identified as an Islamist thinker in Cairo -- said "those who want to perform jihad (Muslim holy war) should go and fight the occupiers in the battlefield and not kill unexpecting innocent people.

 

"We (Muslims) do not kill clerics, we do not kill women, we do not kill children, we do not kill trees. This is what the prophet taught us. The U.S. and Britain are committing atrocities against our people everywhere but we shouldn't respond to a crime with a crime."

 

TV network Al-Arabiya, on its Web site, solicited readers' responses to the attacks. Several expressed happiness, with comments such as "Allahu Akbar, thanks be to God," "More power to al Qaeda leader Osama (bin Laden)," and "What did you expect? This is only a response to the what the British government has done to the group regardless of which group it is."

 

In response, these notes were posted: "To the heroes of Arabism and Jihad, since you are sparing no method to attack the West and you gloat as you try to kill the largest number of civilians. How would you like it if the West relieves itself of your headache by hitting you with one of its nuclear weapons. It takes only minutes and then there will be no heroes, no men and no shish kebab."

 

Another wrote: "Why you are so happy about something like this?" What if one of your family members in London died? Even in a war, don't kill women, children, old people ... please Muslims think before you judge any action, and think about your actions and judge yourself before you judge people."

 

There were similar responses to another posting, in which someone said: "What happened to them is less than what they deserve" because of all of the people killed in the Muslim world daily. "I hope they will get more and more every day," this writer said.

 

Writers punched back, saying there was no excuse for such attacks. Responses included:

 

"Those terrorists have ruined the reputation of Arabs in Europe" and have hurt the religion.

 

"Arabs will be facing more harassment now. That's why Arabs should stand together against these terrorist groups which has only one goal of killing innocent women, elderly and children."

 

"We are entering a difficult times in Europe, especially difficult for our brothers who live in dignity and prosperity in Europe while they enjoy the vastness of the continent after they escaped their governments' dictatorships."

 

"One of the targeted areas today is Edgware road, which is entirely accommodated by Muslims and Arabs. Do you know that no politicians, army troops, or any important governmental employees use the underground or buses, because simply they have much more money to use a private car.

 

"This is not Islam. Aldgate station is a two-minute walk from the largest Muslim community in London. So please don't be happy."

 

One writer said "innocent people have been attacked while going about their daily routine... Londoners are the most hard working and efficient city folk I have ever seen, and they shall overcome these awful events and prevail. Blair has a lot of explanation to be done. I am an Arab, and rest assured that we are all shocked and angry.

 

"We love London!"

 

I never knew that the areas targeted were largely Arab/Muslim-inhabited. I still don't get why I'm called nuts for asking for rock-solid proof before we start pointing fingers.

[MrRant 0]

All I can say is I sure hope you guys don't have the same kinds of laws and shit passed there after your attack like we had here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which law has personally inconvienced you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a dangerous attitude towards the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was a question of curiosity not necessarily an attitude towards it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Oh. Well, in that case, nothing's really bugged me about it. Well, there was the time that we were on an Academic Team trip in 2002 and our buzzers we had with us were pretty much boxes with a button you'd push in on the top, but extended out, like a thick detonator. Anyways, that's a safety one, which I'm all about. I also got to see our other chaperone on the trip, who was a coach at the high school also, heckle a guy while he had to be taken out of the line and strip-searched. He then later said that he'd have to bust out the 24-inch Pythons on the guy if he got fresh with his hands during the search. Then he cut a Macho Man-style promo on terrorists for embarassing him. Man, he ruled.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/10...acks/index.html

Fresh security threat as Britain mourns

 

Fear after suspicious package found in Birmingham

 

Sunday, July 10, 2005; Posted: 5:40 a.m. EDT (09:40 GMT)

 

LONDON, England (CNN) -- As the hunt continued for the victims and perpetrators of London's terrorist attacks, Britain was mourning the dead, recalling the heroism of a war fought 60 years ago -- and reeling from a fresh security threat.

 

Thousands of people were evacuated from Birmingham's city center late Saturday night after they faced "a real and very credible threat," police said.

 

West Midlands police chief constable Paul Scott-Lee said intelligence indicated the threat to England's second-largest city was genuine, although wouldn't describe the nature of the threat, The Associated Press reported.

 

Evacuation orders for the entertainment district of the city of 3 million were lifted Sunday morning after police conducted extensive searches and determined that a suspicious package found at a hotel was not a "credible device."

 

Earlier police said the package had "the characteristics" of an explosive device, describing it as a box with wires coming out of it and a switch on top.

 

It was unclear if the threat was tied to Thursday's deadly terrorist bombings in London. But assistant chief constable Stuart Hyde said there was no evidence linking the two, AP said.

 

Hours earlier, police in London said the string of bombs that ripped through three Underground trains went off within seconds and that the blasts were so strong none of the victims have been identified.

 

"All three bombs on the London Underground system actually exploded within seconds of each other, at 8:50 in the morning," Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said, revising original accounts that the train blasts occurred over a 26-minute span Thursday morning.

 

"It was bang, bang, bang, very close together," London Underground managing director Tim O'Toole said. Nearly an hour later, at 9:47 a.m., a fourth explosion tore through a double-decker bus. (Timeline)

 

More than 50 people were killed and 700 injured in the rush-hour blasts. Scotland Yard Commissioner Ian Blair said the total death toll would rise, but probably not above 100.

 

Blair said the attacks had "all the hallmarks of al Qaeda," and authorities have vowed to hunt down the bombers.

 

Technical data and witness accounts suggest the bombs contained synchronized timing devices and were probably not triggered by suicide bombers, police said, adding that the bombs were composed of "high explosives" and probably not homemade material, police said. ('Level of sophistication')

 

The bombs used in the attacks held less than 10 pounds of explosives each -- light enough to easily tote in a bag or knapsack, police said. (Bombs small, portable)

 

Police said they were still unclear whether the person who planted the bus bomb died in the explosion or was even on the bus at the time. They said the device was in a bag and not strapped to an individual.

 

The roof of the bus was blown off and has been taken away for examination, and the site will be closed for some time while "fingertip examinations" take place, police said.

 

Mourning and remembrance

On the first Sunday after the attacks, Britons were mourning the victims of the bombings as they marked the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II.

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was giving an address at Westminster Abbey, and Queen Elizabeth II was to lay flowers in commemoration of those who died in the war.

 

The queen also was to attend a veteran's lunch at Buckingham Palace, followed by a commemoration in Horse Guards Parade in central London, a parade in the Mall and a fly-past of vintage aircraft.

 

Earlier, the queen and her eldest son, Prince Charles, visited the wounded in London hospitals and sent a message of defiance to terrorists on behalf of the British people. (Full story)

 

Londoners packed churches across the city to mourn the victims of the attacks and pray for peace and calm.

 

People streamed into St. Pancras Parish Church for a memorial service. Memorial services also were planned at St. Paul's Cathedral, where special prayers were to be offered and candles lit in honor of the victims, AP said.

 

Scotland Yard said 49 bodies have been recovered and that more bodies were still trapped deep underground at the site of the deadliest attack. But the remains were so mangled and difficult to retrieve that authorities have yet to identify a single body.

 

"It is a very harrowing task," Detective Superintendent Jim Dickie told reporters Saturday. "Most of the victims have suffered intensive trauma, and by that I mean there are body parts as well as torsos."

 

Forensics experts were using fingerprints, dental records and DNA analysis to help put names to the bodies, Dickie said, adding it could be weeks before the identities are released.

 

Authorities said rescue crews were hampered by dangerous conditions in the Piccadilly Line tunnel between the King's Cross and Russell Square stations, where at least 21 people died.

 

Deputy Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police said it was not clear how many bodies remained trapped.

 

"It is extremely hot and very dusty and it is a great challenge for them to continue their work to recover the remaining bodies," he said.

 

Agonizing search for missing

With no official list of the victims published, relatives and friends continued their agonizing search for missing relatives.

 

In a chilling flashback to the aftermaths of the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Indian Ocean tsunami, loved ones trawled hospitals and streets desperately looking for information.

 

"I just have to find him," said Yvonne Nash, who was searching for her boyfriend, Jamie Gordon, in Tavistock Square where the bus exploded. (Search for missing; Gallery)

 

Flowers, notes and appeals for information were piled outside King's Cross station. "Barbarism will never kill freedom," read one note in French. "Madrid is with London," said another.

 

Police opened a 24-hour reception center to provide information and support to families. Authorities said they have received more than 100,000 calls about possible missing persons.

 

Meanwhile, a government-prepared dossier says al Qaeda is targeting middle-class Britons to join its ranks, a newspaper reported Sunday.

 

According to The Sunday Times, the reports by the British Home Office and Foreign Office detailed how extremist recruiters were looking to Britain. The reports were drawn up in the aftermath of the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, Spain. (Full story)

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Saturday it was crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he listed as deprivation, lack of democracy and the ongoing Middle East conflict. (Full story)

 

The attacks came as Blair was hosting the G8 summit in Scotland and a day after London was awarded the 2012 Olympics. (G8 summit; Olympics)

 

Britain's top law enforcement official said Friday police were searching for the bombers before they had a chance to strike again.

 

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government was taking seriously a claim of responsibility on the Internet from a group calling itself "The Group of al Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe." The authenticity of the claim could not be verified.

 

Al-Queda?

 

What the hell?! I don't know how I'm nuts for seeing inconsistencies all over the place here.

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

 

On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

 

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

 

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

 

more here:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...ngexercises.htm

[Jingus 0]

...what? That doesn't make any sense. "At the exact same time, at the exact same place" means that their drill would have been bombed, which doesn't seem to be what the story says.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

ABC News station here played a clip of some official trying to calm people down while dodging questions. Then he says:

 

"This is the biggest attack in the history of England."

 

Way to forget about the blitzkreig, fella. Al-Qaeda ain't got nothing on the Luftwaffe.

[SuperJerk 0]

ABC News station here played a clip of some official trying to calm people down while dodging questions. Then he says:

 

"This is the biggest attack in the history of England."

 

Way to forget about the blitzkreig, fella. Al-Qaeda ain't got nothing on the Luftwaffe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd say even the invasion of 1066 trumps this.

[Art Sandusky 0]

ABC News station here played a clip of some official trying to calm people down while dodging questions. Then he says:

 

"This is the biggest attack in the history of England."

 

Way to forget about the blitzkreig, fella. Al-Qaeda ain't got nothing on the Luftwaffe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shh! There was nothingness before 9/11!

[Zorin Industries 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm

 

On the news at the moment there saying that its likely all 4 were the result of suicide bombers, and all the suspects are British nationals. That'll certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, especially in the north where relations have been strained with the muslim population for some time

[cbacon 0]

They don't need any other incentive than to try to push an extremist message. They are fundamentalists: what more incentive do they need than 'We are doing the work of God'? Is that a reasonable incentive to you?

 

Chew on this

 

TORONTO - Security and emergency relief experts from more than 50 countries began an international disaster conference here today with a call for a dramatic rethinking of the global strategy on terrorism.

 

The experts say the free world has done a good job so far using counterterrorism measures and military force to combat terrorism. But it hasn't done as well in understanding and tackling the disenchantment that is the root cause.

 

They say the morphing of the al-Qaeda terror network into a global movement that is increasingly attracting new recruits warrants a "challenge to the assumptions of the war on terror."

 

Former Scotland Yard anti-terrorism expert Peter Power says the West must embark on a new campaign for the hearts and minds of Muslims, especially the young ones. And it has to critically re-examine government policies to find out if they are feeding the fires of hatred in the Muslim world.

 

"Yes, we have to attack and annihilate those who seek to kill us, and so there's no point in having a dialogue with al-Qaeda, because they want to kill us," said Mr. Power, who spent 20 years as a Scotland Yard counterterrorism official during the heyday of the IRA terror campaign.

 

"But we are in a long game and we've got to get into the Muslim communities, go to the mullahs, go to the teachers, go to the children and understand what is happening. We may not prevent the bomb next year, but we could be getting the preventive process ready to stop the bomb in five years."

 

Adrian Gordon, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness, and an organizer of the conference, agrees.

 

"The war on terrorism is necessary, but it can't all be meeting force with force," he said. "It seems that there is a great reluctance to deal with root causes of terrorism that are intrinsically linked with foreign policies. But we need to spend a lot more time looking at those causes."

 

Originally meant to focus on the threat of pandemics and natural disasters, the conference has been overshadowed by last week's terror attacks in London. Anne McLellan, the deputy prime minister and public safety minister, is to address the more than 1,000 delegates and experts today on what lies ahead for Canada.

 

Over the next three days, the experts will then focus on the practicalities of fighting terrorism and natural disasters.

 

Mr. Power, who is now an international security consultant, says what he finds troubling is that despite the war on terror, the hatred of the West -- especially the U.S. -- is growing, not abating.

 

He pointed out, for example, that a few months ago in a predominantly Muslim state of Nigeria, 73 of the 100 baby boys born in one week at the state hospital were named Osama, after al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.

 

Mr. Power says it is that kind of mindset that the West has to deal with, and argues says it is vital to try to understand why so many men and women around the world feel this way. And clearly, he said, there has to be more to it than the oft-held belief that "they hate our freedoms."

 

He said Britain had to make an effort to understand the IRA, which had killed thousands of people, in order to mount and effective campaign against the organization. The free world must do the same in the Muslim world.

 

Mr. Gordon, however, says while the focus on terrorism is laudable, he hopes governments will not overlook other dangers like a pandemic that, if it hits, would be more deadly.

 

On Fisk: Doyle got most of the good points, but just to repeat: There is justification in that statement. Saying 'Well, we should have expected it and we damn well deserved it' is pretty much justifying an attack on innocent civilians.

 

I’d be inclined to agree with you on that, if Fisk had actually said that. Perhaps something more precise will illustrate the point Fisk was trying to make :

 

“These basic humanistic precepts are the principle casualties of fundamentalism, whether it is wedded to Muhammad or the market. They were clearly absent from the minds of those who bombed London last week. They are no less absent from the minds of those who have pursued the war on terror for the past four years.

 

Tony Blair is not responsible for the more than 50 dead and 700 injured on Thursday. In all likelihood, "jihadists" are. But he is partly responsible for the 100,000 people who have been killed in Iraq. And even at this early stage there is a far clearer logic linking these two events than there ever was tying Saddam Hussein to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

 

It is no mystery why those who have backed the war in Iraq would refute this connection. With each and every setback, from the lack of UN endorsement right through to the continuing strength of the insurgency, they go ever deeper into denial. Their sophistry has now mutated into a form of political autism - their ability to engage with the world around them has been severely impaired by their adherence to a flawed and fatal project. To say that terrorists would have targeted us even if we hadn't gone into Iraq is a bit like a smoker justifying their habit by saying, "I could get run over crossing the street tomorrow." True, but the certain health risks of cigarettes are more akin to playing chicken on a four-lane highway. They have the effect of bringing that fatal, fateful day much closer than it might otherwise be.”

 

Would this also be another example of justifying the attacks?

 

The second quote does justify civilian deaths: By saying 'well, they're paying the price' is saying "Well, they're getting what they deserved'.

 

No, it doesn’t, they both imply different things. You can say “they’re paying the price” without implying that the price was justifiable. The context in which he is speaking refers to the consequences of US foreign policy. With that premise in mind, how else might he word that phrase to make it sound like he wasn’t justifying the attacks?

 

It's made to imply punishment i.e. that they stole something and now they must pay it back.

 

Alright, but the concept of something being “paid back” does not necessarily make it just, nor does Fisk state that it is so. He’s saying if America dicks around and pisses off Arabs, then those Arabs are going to retaliate and kill a bunch of innocent civilians. These are consequences for our actions. They are not deserved, but they are consequences nonetheless.

 

 

If you did any actual research on Islamic Fundamentalism, you'd realize that it's intensely xenophobic and calls for the death of any non-believers. Whatever other 'incentives' are secondary to the fact that they are all ancilliary to the fact that their doctrine of Islam tells them to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their God. Why are they ticked off at the US being in Saudi Arabia? It's not because we are infringing on their Sovereignty. It's because they are told to kill any people that believe differently than them.

 

Your absolutely right. However, the point I was making was that this irrational extremism is what fuels their various incentives (the Palestine issue, the war, etc.). I’m not going to condone their radical religious dogma, but we (the West) are not helping the cause by waging war in the Middle East. If Muslims believe that US bases residing in their Holy Land are offensive, then we have to tolerate these beliefs. We obviously don't tolerate their reactions to such issues, but these are dangerous conditions that are important to keep in mind and address. Obviously we differ on the basis behind the reason many in the Arab world are so pissed off. According to you they have no reason to be angry since its their extreme fundamentalism that clouds their judgment, ignoring any social or political concerns.

 

You should be aware that not all Islamists share the ideologies of the extremists, and many are pissed off about things like their children being killed by coalition bombs, and the fact that malnutrition has doubled since the war began, among other things. Is this something they shouldn't be concerned about? I wasn't arguing whether they are justified in feeling such ways (although in most cases I believe they are, but thats an entirely different argument). The main issue I was refuting was the notion made by posters like Doyle and Barron about how it doesn’t matter what the terrorists think we should just kill kill kill and that will sort everything out. You cannot stop terrorism this way, you only fuel the hatred. This of course, is exactly what individuals such as Osama bin Laden want.

 

Since we both know exactly what these terrorists are saying, why is it that we often hear the same old 'they hate freedom' or 'they are jealous of our power' rhetoric? Why does the media never make note of these issues and debunk them as you did?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Rather than complain about suicide bombers and targeting non-combatants, we just need to understand them better. Maybe if we just stop having a cow about government-sponsored beheadings and targeting non-combatants and just say "Hey, it's part of their culture," all the weird tension we have with the Muslim world will just disappear, just like the many hands they chop off for stealing.

 

 

 

GOARIDHOUSTHSUGHUISLGHLSUIDFHSLIUDFH

 

Goddamnit, why did I click "show this post?"

I am never going to take that risk again.

[Justice 0]

Okay, I'll make my points without quoting to save time and space.

 

On the article: It's decent, but there are few incentives. Once again, a reason is not an incentive to do something. An incentive is a reward of some kind, and there aren't many incentives to this type of work than "Doing the work of God" or the good old "77 Virgins" idea. Understand, when we are talking incentives, there are really none other.

 

Not only this, but 'understanding' this Islam is not going to help us much in stopping it. It's an atmosphere that needs to be changed. Giving these people democracy, a chance to control their own future, to actually be free... isn't that doing something for them? We invaded Iraq, and we've been proceeding to both rebuild Iraq and give them a representative government. We aren't placing a 'dictator' there. We are trying to make up for past mistakes (Yes, that plays a part) and change it from being a place this form of Islam can breed. Already if you look at the 'insurgency', it's become more and more foreign fighters rather than just Iraqis.

 

We can't just expect to try and 'understand' this and suddenly expect things to change. If it is our foreign policy, then what should we do? If we leave the region alone, we do nothing to stop it from propagating even more. Not only that, it makes it seem like we just run away from our past mistakes. We need to actively fix this region. When dealing with this type of ideology, that's the only way.

 

I'm more of a 'Well, actually work to help them' rather than 'We need to understand what this is'. I think we understand what this is, and I think through a proactive policy of helping the Arab people by eliminating these cruel dictatorships and theocracies, we can do far more than we could ever do with meaningless 'goodwill diplomcacy'.

 

On Fisk: First off, that article is more a 'sophistry' of exaggerated intelligence on the writer's part, considering the entire article speaks with with the condescension of the proverbial 'wizard in the Ivory Tower'. I wouldn't say he's accusing or justifying as much as critiquing, but he hardly uses phrases that Fisk does, and his accusations aren't nearly the same level. Saying we're 'paying the price for our help in Iraq' for something and saying 'Tony is partly responsible for these deaths' are a bit different in phrase, context, and tone.

 

So, I'd that the other article is very much different in tone and phrasing than this.

 

Once again, 'paying the price' isn't an ambigious phrase. It's different than just saying, "This is very much connected with our help in Iraq". It implies something. It implies a sense of justice being done. You can't say 'they're paying the price' without saying the price is justifiable. If that's 'the price', then you are accepting that fact. It's justified, because that's 'the price'. You don't say something like that unless you believe that is proper or fitting.

 

There's no way around it: Fisk did justify those deaths by saying 'Well, we deserved 'em!' with his tone and phrasing. The above article, as foolish as I might think it, didn't. It's all in the context, tone, and phrasing. You really have to pay attention to all that, because it doesn't hurt your case of 'I don't justify this stuff!' He shouldn't have used it, and he should get flamed and criticized for using such blatantly stupid language.

 

On the beliefs: They asked us to base in the 'Holy Land'. This wasn't something we did arbitrarily to piss people off. You have to understand to that to much of the 'slights' that we've made, there is a second side you are missing. In Palestine, we support Israel not only because it's the only democracy in the Middle East, but because they've been playing defense for so damn long. I think it was INXS who was angry that they took land during the 7 Days War, a war they were invaded and took land to set up defensive buffers against such a surprise attack. When we supported the Shah, we didn't him up, he was a leader we were friendly with. It's natural for a country to want to support someone who likes them. He was overthrown by religious fanatics based on this. In Iraq, we had to support someone in the Iraq/Iran War because we didn't want the religious fanaticism of Iran to spill over into Iraq. That was a very real risk, and we had to make a choice. It was a mistake in hindsight, but it was a choice that had to be made one way or the other. Same with Afganistan and the Russians.

 

The problem with much of this is that while some of these are wrong, it's not the rationalization behind their hate. It's the 'open' rationalization, but the real reason is that their religious dogma is hateful, xenophobic, and only massively skews these events to suit their purpose. If we were to do anything in the Middle East, it could be easily modified to fit their needs. The mind of an Islamic Fundamentalist thinks in a much different, more absolute logic: It looks at what we do and immediately assumes it's a trick or slight against them. Every 'wrong' is magnified, every assistance is looked at as a western trick: Do you remember when they claimed that we had poison in the foodpacks we were dropping from the air?

 

The very huge majority of those who take up arms are extremists. The idea that many are taking up arms against the US because of bad conditions is becoming more and more untrue as it's becoming apparent that foreign fighters are the great majority in Iraq, and many of the homegrowns are Baathists and local extremists. Many understand that while things are bad, we are working hard to improve things. We don't mean for any of this, it's simply a result of the insurgency slowing down their return to a stable government and economy.

 

It is about jealousy of power. The Islamic Fundamentalist is a facist: He believes that he is superior because of something. In this case it's Islam. So how else can he explain why the Arab nations are so poor and the US and the West so rich? They assume that we've stolen it, that we've tricked them or are purposely keeping them down. He can't look at the real reasons: Corrupt dictatorships and theocracies, the denial of progress on behalf of the state, etc. It's all the fault of the West because, well, how could it be the fault of the Muslim world? Anything we do to one of these people is simply another control, a way of keeping them down. It's not rational at all. They do want that power, and they don't like the freedom we have: What state would possibly let Zionists of all people run around and assume positions of power? What people would let women dress the way they do, and let children run around listening to that horrid music? They want control, they want conformity, and they dislike seeing anyone doing something other than what they think.

 

At the end of the day, they two main problems are "They are jealous of our power" and "They hate our freedom". We don't break it down as much as we should, but it's much more that than the superficial justifications of 'foreign policy'. Those are just to try and find a justification that others might believe. If you look at it closely, it lacks teeth, and hopefully one day you'll be able to see that.

 

We've made our mistakes in the Middle East. But the blame for this hate solely lies in the Middle Eastern leaders for preying upon it and using it to sustain their power. The only way to stop the cycle is to stop these leaders, and that is what we are trying to do.

[SuperJerk 0]

If we were to do anything in the Middle East, it could be easily modified to fit their needs. The mind of an Islamic Fundamentalist thinks in a much different, more absolute logic: It looks at what we do and immediately assumes it's a trick or slight against them. Every 'wrong' is magnified, every assistance is looked at as a western trick: Do you remember when they claimed that we had poison in the foodpacks we were dropping from the air?

 

That's a good point.

 

I would think a good way to fight terrorism would be to expose terrorist leaders as being people who exploit fundamentalist paranoia for their own personal power. I can't believe that terrorism would be a continuing phenomena unless someone was gaining something from it. Someone is fanning the flames. Take THEM out, educate the populace in how to govern itself, and maybe the killing will stop.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm

 

On the news at the moment there saying that its likely all 4 were the result of suicide bombers, and all the suspects are British nationals. That'll certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, especially in the north where relations have been strained with the muslim population for some time

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so now they're suicide bombers.

[Jingus 0]

Justice pretty much said my feelings on the matter. Lots of these terrorists aren't reacting to any actual "wrongful behavior" from America or anyone else. Osama Bin Ladin said, over and over again, that the 9/11 attacks were committed because we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim homeland. This despite the fact that the Saudi government ASKED for our troops to be stationed there, and that the main reason they were there in the first place was to keep an eye on secular dictator Saddam Hussein in case he tried to invade any more Islamic countries.

 

Some of these people simply aren't sane. They do not behave in a rational manner in accordance with the known facts. They cannot be reasoned with. The only way to deal with them is either imprisonment or death.

[MrRant 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4674463.stm

 

On the news at the moment there saying that its likely all 4 were the result of suicide bombers, and all the suspects are British nationals. That'll certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons, especially in the north where relations have been strained with the muslim population for some time

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so now they're suicide bombers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Mmmm.... holy war.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I like that the headline on CNN.com said "Blair Shocked 'Bombers' Were British."

[MrRant 0]

Uninformed Race Wars 2K5~! Down with Brown~!

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Im trying to figure out how anyone would be able to do anything about people wanting to kill themselves by blowing themselves up in a crowded area, especially if none of the people would get noticed by the government scanning for possible terrorists. This one showed a lot of planning, but some people might just wake up one morning and go, "I want to go blow myself up today" and they could probably do it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Terrorism is humans finally realizing that they can capitalize on the daily reliance most of us have on everything being totally predictable.

[Art Sandusky 0]

CNN reported early this morning that three of the bombers learned their trade in Pakistan.