Terrorist attack attempted on Transatlantic flight!

[shaun.lawson]

The war in iraq wasn't legal. The attorney general based his argument on a UN resolution designed to enable George Bush senior to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait !! ...It's always been seen as a desperate measure to justify illegal aggression.

 

That resolution also made clear that a resumption of hostilities would be legitimate if Saddam failed to disarm all his WMD. In order to establish whether Iraq had done this, the UN set up UNSCOM; which Saddam obstructed and didn't co-operate with. The US and UK therefore concluded he had something to hide; and UNSCR 1441 provided legal cover for us, and enabled France, Russia and China to argue it simply provided for more time.

 

All of which made the war legal according to the letter, but hardly the spirit of the law. If Saddam wanted to avoid it, he could at any point have provided proof that his WMD had all been destroyed, he had no programmes attempting to rebuild them, and co-operated with the inspectors. He didn't.

[shaun.lawson]

It's not really to do with justification though is it Shaun. It's to do with revenge and that's nothing more than a natural human emotion so labelling it in terms of legality is redundant.

 

Completely agree. It's still indefensible though. And in the case of Islamo-fascist extremists, while there are many things we can and should be doing to isolate them and drain them of their support base, the only thing we could do to stop them trying to attack us would be to convert to Sharia law. With regard to which, no thankyou.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

Ever wondered why a tiny number of them might be mad enough to try these things?

 

Maybe it's because a huge number of Christians are in their countries, armed to the teeth and have wrought havoc in the pursuit of robbing them blind.

 

Maybe if the hundreds of thousands of "Christian" soldiers came home and stayed home there'd be no trouble whatsoever.

 

I was so hoping you wouldn't see this thread or better yet your family had had you committed with no access to the internet.

YOU REALLY ARE BORING.

[djf]

Completely agree. It's still indefensible though. And in the case of Islamo-fascist extremists, while there are many things we can and should be doing to isolate them and drain them of their support base, the only thing we could do to stop them trying to attack us would be to convert to Sharia law. With regard to which, no thankyou.

 

 

Save a few (relatively speaking) exceptions - war, terrorism and murder - are always indefensible. It leads to the death of innocents over issues as mundane as religion, territory, nationalism and natural resources.

 

I suppose radical Islamic extremists would counter that the only way to stop the continual Western influence in their nations would be to hand over complete control to the States and I dare say their response to that would also be, no thankyou.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I read MJ's post as an reasoned view into why these sort of things happen rather than a justification or vindication on the rights of people to set fire to themselves on planes.

 

Reckon we'd be better off understanding what drives people to blow themselves up, rather than simply dismissing outrages such as this as religious fanaticism or islamic terrorism.

 

I'm watching a show tomorrow on the Discovery Channel.

"Suicide Bombers and what makes them tick"

[djf]

I was so hoping you wouldn't see this thread or better yet your family had had you committed with no access to the internet.

YOU REALLY ARE BORING.

 

I dare say a thread where everyone labels Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab an inhuman monster with no attempt to understand just why somebody could be driven to such an act would make for a rivetting read.

 

AMERICA, **** YEAH

[felix]

I'm watching a show tomorrow on the Discovery Channel.

"Suicide Bombers and what makes them tick"

 

As George Bush said... (in southern drawl).....

 

".. and as for the suicide bombers.....there will be no hiding place.

We 'll track them down, and bring them to justice. "

[shaun.lawson]

Save a few (relatively speaking) exceptions - war, terrorism and murder - are always indefensible. It leads to the death of innocents over issues as mundane as religion, territory, nationalism and natural resources.

 

I suppose radical Islamic extremists would counter that the only way to stop the continual Western influence in their nations would be to hand over complete control to the States and I dare say their response to that would also be, no thankyou.

 

My response to the radical Islamo-fascist extremists would be I have no respect for their perversion of Islam, and therefore no desire to listen to their fantastical gibberish. Which is kinda why we have a conflict between the West and terrorists, really.

 

On your earlier point: are issues to do with territory "mundane"? Not when they involve that territory being annexed by another country, they're not. Are issues to do with resources "mundane"? Not when those resources enable us to live as we presently do, they're not.

[wibble]

......... When it comes to real hideous regimes, I don't think you have the first clue what living under one is like; and I know I'm damn thankful that I don't either.

 

Shaun. I take the role of Devil's advocate often on JKB to counter-balance the viewpoint of many posters who take all things on face value and present the Sky News point of view at all times. All things British = good, all things Muslim = bad.

 

I don't believe that we live under truly hideous regimes, but if you put yourself in the position of, for example, a young Iraqi or Afghan it is easy to see how he could perceive the West as the root of all evil - he could not be blamed for wishing to fight back.

 

I also believe that our regimes seem good to live under only because times have been good. If the banking collapse had been greater we may well be under some fairly tyrannical rule right now. I certainly have no doubt that our system has the potential to turn nasty. You need only look at the response taken when a few hippies turn up to protest at a G7 summit.

 

The West has a system that is based on being at war with an enemy. It can be fascists, communists, muslims, dictators, invisible terrorists, whatever. Western democracy and the Western economy simply needs to be at war with someone. Peace is not an objective. Peace would leave a huge hole in the economic make-up of the UK and the USA. A great deal was written about this concept by the very people who drove the Iraq war agenda. War and the fear/division it brings is a great control mechanism within the US and UK systems - divide and conquer. Citizens under threat question very little - like "what the **** has happened to the economy?".

 

I find it very easy to understand how a young man from Iraq or Afghanistan could hate our system. I can also understand how he would look to terrorism as the solution when you see the imbalance in strength between the two sides. A fair fight is not an option.

 

I definitely don't agree with terrorism or any other act of violence against a civilian. I feel as bad for the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq as I do for the 3,500 in New York - I really find it hard to see the difference. Both groups were mothers, father, sons and daughters who probably wanted a quiet life and nothing more. Neither group had a say in their fate and neither of the two aggressors could justify the killing.

 

The West can look back on decades of bad feeling because of the actions of the US and UK in dozens of coups, invasions, assassinations etc. etc. There is a strong likelihood that radical Islam would not even exist if the middle east had been left to sort itself out rather than have the west poking it's fingers into every pie.

 

We've made our bed.

[felix]

That resolution also made clear that a resumption of hostilities would be legitimate if Saddam failed to disarm all his WMD. In order to establish whether Iraq had done this, the UN set up UNSCOM; which Saddam obstructed and didn't co-operate with. The US and UK therefore concluded he had something to hide; and UNSCR 1441 provided legal cover for us, and enabled France, Russia and China to argue it simply provided for more time.

 

All of which made the war legal according to the letter, but hardly the spirit of the law. If Saddam wanted to avoid it, he could at any point have provided proof that his WMD had all been destroyed, he had no programmes attempting to rebuild them, and co-operated with the inspectors. He didn't.

 

But saddam did co-operate with inspectors and as everyone knows (and knew at the time) he didn't have WMD's. - therefore resolution 1441 is irrelevant.

The attorney general based the legality on resolution 678 which was drafted to deal with Kuwait. Even Major and Bush snr agreed resn. 678 shouldn't be used to justify an i(illegal) invasion.

[djf]

My response to the radical Islamo-fascist extremists would be I have no respect for their perversion of Islam, and therefore no desire to listen to their fantastical gibberish. Which is kinda why we have a conflict between the West and terrorists, really.

 

 

Because we ignore what is a relevant point?

 

 

 

On your earlier point: are issues to do with territory "mundane"? Not when they involve that territory being annexed by another country, they're not. Are issues to do with resources "mundane"? Not when those resources enable us to live as we presently do, they're not.

 

They are in relation to the value of human life.

[wibble]

You can say the same of any war at any point in history. If you recall, Hitler didn't declare war on or attack Britain before we did against Germany. Heaven only knows how many civilians went on to be killed by Allied forces. I take it people would've been justified in seeking retribution against us, then?

 

If there was not a scrap of evidence to justify the war, then YES they would have been justified in seeking retribution.

 

You seem fixated with the fact that the war was technically legal in the eyes of the West rather than the fact that the war couldn't be justified with any proof.

[wibble]

Are issues to do with resources "mundane"? Not when those resources enable us to live as we presently do, they're not.

 

When military action has to be taken against the rightful owners of those resources perhaps the West has to look at the way they live and realize that it is unsustainable. The West must also realize that the owners of those resources will do everything in their power to exact some revenge.

 

The West needs to look in the mirror and ask how it would feel if the same was happening to them.

 

We'd have our very own terror factions - probably based in Robbo's.

[wibble]

I was so hoping you wouldn't see this thread or better yet your family had had you committed with no access to the internet.

YOU REALLY ARE BORING.

 

I was so hoping that you'd add to the debate, but I think you're incapable.

[djf]

 

The West needs to look in the mirror and ask how it would feel if the same was happening to them. .

 

Sums it up. It's a question not many will ask. Fairly at least.

[shaun.lawson]

The West needs to look in the mirror and ask how it would feel if the same was happening to them.

 

 

I'd like to think we'd be looking at ourselves and our own responsibilities for where we found ourselves in a way all too many Arab and Moslem societies do not - largely because we have such wacky ideas as freedom of speech, a free press, respect for women and human rights. I don't disagree with many of your comments on Western foreign policy; but while Islamic societies represented pretty much the height of enlightenment 500 years ago, at some point they seem to have stagnated and turned in on themselves.

 

Why have there been so many ghastly, violent, despotic regimes in Islamic countries? And why do so many within them seem to prefer what is all too often pure victimology instead of seeking reform and holding corrupt leaders to account? Because the latter is almost impossible, the West is very often an easy scapegoat instead.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I was so hoping that you'd add to the debate, but I think you're incapable.

 

What debate? The debate were you turn everything and anything into a rant. If say for instance the Australian Aboriganal peoples decided they wanted their lands back or the western oppressors out and resorted to terrorism against the existing government you'd be fine with that.

You're obviously smart. You just repeat the same line every two weeks or so.

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun. I take the role of Devil's advocate often on JKB to counter-balance the viewpoint of many posters who take all things on face value and present the Sky News point of view at all times. All things British = good, all things Muslim = bad.

 

I don't believe that we live under truly hideous regimes, but if you put yourself in the position of, for example, a young Iraqi or Afghan it is easy to see how he could perceive the West as the root of all evil - he could not be blamed for wishing to fight back.

 

I also believe that our regimes seem good to live under only because times have been good. If the banking collapse had been greater we may well be under some fairly tyrannical rule right now. I certainly have no doubt that our system has the potential to turn nasty. You need only look at the response taken when a few hippies turn up to protest at a G7 summit.

 

The West has a system that is based on being at war with an enemy. It can be fascists, communists, muslims, dictators, invisible terrorists, whatever. Western democracy and the Western economy simply needs to be at war with someone. Peace is not an objective. Peace would leave a huge hole in the economic make-up of the UK and the USA. A great deal was written about this concept by the very people who drove the Iraq war agenda. War and the fear/division it brings is a great control mechanism within the US and UK systems - divide and conquer. Citizens under threat question very little - like "what the **** has happened to the economy?".

 

I find it very easy to understand how a young man from Iraq or Afghanistan could hate our system. I can also understand how he would look to terrorism as the solution when you see the imbalance in strength between the two sides. A fair fight is not an option.

 

I definitely don't agree with terrorism or any other act of violence against a civilian. I feel as bad for the 100,000 dead civilians in Iraq as I do for the 3,500 in New York - I really find it hard to see the difference. Both groups were mothers, father, sons and daughters who probably wanted a quiet life and nothing more. Neither group had a say in their fate and neither of the two aggressors could justify the killing.

 

The West can look back on decades of bad feeling because of the actions of the US and UK in dozens of coups, invasions, assassinations etc. etc. There is a strong likelihood that radical Islam would not even exist if the middle east had been left to sort itself out rather than have the west poking it's fingers into every pie.

 

We've made our bed.

 

MJ - credit where it's due. This is a very, very good, thought provoking post: one of the best I've read on here on the topic in question. I think you're right in a whole host of the above; but again, I don't see what the alternatives are, nor do I think there's the slightest chance of people in the West accepting the massive changes in lifestyle which could be involved.

 

Couple of things though. Citizens are questioning what the **** has happened to the economy, here and elsewhere: what else do you think was the primary cause of Obama's election? Meanwhile, to return to the point Boo made: the 7/7 bombers weren't Iraqi or Afghan, and at least some of them were well educated too. So where was their justification or motivation?

 

They were based in Beeston, a suburb of Leeds. Later in 2005, I helped my brother moved up there. Given the place's new found notoriety, I was expecting an absolute **** hole: sink estates everywhere, a near curfew after dark, that sort of thing. But while it wasn't exactly Beverly Hills, it was altogether unremarkable, and hardly some arse stain at the end of civilisation. All of which left me all the more puzzled as to why the bombers had done as they had.

[wibble]

MJ - credit where it's due. This is a very, very good, thought provoking post: one of the best I've read on here on the topic in question. I think you're right in a whole host of the above; but again, I don't see what the alternatives are, nor do I think there's the slightest chance of people in the West accepting the massive changes in lifestyle which could be involved.

 

Couple of things though. Citizens are questioning what the **** has happened to the economy, here and elsewhere: what else do you think was the primary cause of Obama's election? Meanwhile, to return to the point Boo made: the 7/7 bombers weren't Iraqi or Afghan, and at least some of them were well educated too. So where was their justification or motivation?

 

They were based in Beeston, a suburb of Leeds. Later in 2005, I helped my brother moved up there. Given the place's new found notoriety, I was expecting an absolute **** hole: sink estates everywhere, a near curfew after dark, that sort of thing. But while it wasn't exactly Beverly Hills, it was altogether unremarkable, and hardly some arse stain at the end of civilisation. All of which left me all the more puzzled as to why the bombers had done as they had.

 

I think what has happened is the same as happened to the Irish cause in America. A romanticized version of events has been created that people with connections to the oppressed rally to.

 

The West created the polarization of the middle east to the point that, like the Cold War, everything becomes good or evil. "You are with us or you are against us.". Instead of thinking about issues, people are forced to take one side or the other. This goes back to the divide and conquer system of governing and also to Rumsfeld's need for the American people to have a common enemy - something that troubled him after the Cold War started to break down, it was time to open up some new divide.

 

The guys in Leeds grew up in a hybrid society. Islam and the West. As the polarization grows and they get older they feel forced by the political standoff to take a side. Their bonds to Islam are stronger than their bonds to the West (especially after seeing the lies behind the Iraq and Afghan conflicts) and so they side with Islam. Once having identified with Islam they will have been abused in the street and will have felt the full force of British racism/jingoism. This will have convinced them that the British are indeed a bunch of pigs and that what the radicals had told them was true.

 

The challenge was put out to supporters of Islam by George Bush himself. You could almost not be a muslim AND a friend of the West. The radicals played on this to garner support. Divide and rule takes place on both sides of the conflict. People are drawn towards armed conflict because the leaders have deemed that there is no room for negotiation or compromise.

 

Both sets of leaders get what they want - conflict. Victims are the common civilians.

 

The world needs peace negotiators in power, not war-mongers. Unfortunately some of the world's most powerful people control the arms industry, the media and the banking system. While that remains we are destined to be at war with one imagined enemy or another.

 

You ask for alternatives. Until governments take a stand against the industrialists and refuse to send troops to steal resources then there will be no alternative. Again, the polarisation of the issues means that it is all or nothing. All for the common man would mean revolution. I am not sure that would be a good thing. Compromise, understanding and empathy on all sides would be all that is required to get the ball rolling. I think that is what people hoped for from Obama - we haven't seen any of it yet.

[wibble]

Citizens are questioning what the **** has happened to the economy, here and elsewhere: what else do you think was the primary cause of Obama's election?

 

 

Can you imagine what the reaction to the banking collapse would have been if we didn't have all of the war things to think about and the fear that brings to peoples lives.

 

If we were only to have the finances to worry about I think people would have been banging down the doors of the RBS to hang Fred the Shred by the neck until dead.

 

What went down there was huge and the brow-beaten populace let it go by without a whimper. Do not under-estimate how long and hard the general population of Britain will work to pay off the debt that the banking crisis created, and morons on this board jump to defend bankers bonuses. It defies belief.

 

Again to keep the Status Quo there needs to be bonuses - so that the bankers don't leave en masse. Well when a system can be held to ransom by the employees in that way then it is time to create a new system.

[Ulysses]

....morons on this board....

 

Whatever point you have to make, and however strongly you feel about an issue, resorting to abuse only weakens your argument.

 

And 'n' all 'n' anyways, you wouldn't want me to set the moderators on you, I'm sure.

[AlphonseCapone]

How much trouble has there been in Ireland since the troops pulled out? Not very much. How many bombings on the mainland?

 

Terrorists in Ulster killed two soldiers and a policeman only months ago mate.

 

When a country/countries/homeland of a culture or religion is invaded there will be people who use terrorism to put pressure on the oppressor nations.

 

Of course there will, however, there a lot of these terrorists who were born and bred in this country, what invasions or oppression do they have as motivation?

 

As a citizen of one of the oppressor nations I (and you) should accept that it's a simple fact that when you invade countries there will be people who take a pop with terrorist acts. It's part and parcel of being a bully that people will throw a stone at you once in a while when you are not looking.

 

What you shouldn't do is let that simple fact turn you into a rabid racist.

 

It hasn't turned me into a racist, far from it. Also, I do not agree with either of the wars we have/are fighting, but that does not mean that I will happily accept terrorism as a consequence. The majority of people in this country are against the war and what our government has done over there, but these are the same people that the terrorists seek to murder. How many of these people who carry out these acts have any real connection to Afghanistan or Iraq except that they share the same faith? Take the London bombers, three were BRITISH nationals of Pakistani descent, the fourth was born in Jamiaca. They had two main similarities with most of the innocent people they murdered, 1: their country of birth, and 2: not wanting British troops in Afghanistan.

 

These idiots are not carrying out these acts because they understand the plight and tradegy of the average Afghan or Iraqi. They are carry them out because they have a warped view that Islam is the only religion and anyone who does not follow it is an enemy. To these people, we should all worship Allah, in THIS country. I'm not talking about the majority of Muslims here btw, simply the fanatics.

 

If their reasons for carry out these terrorist attacks is due to the West's presence in Muslim countries, what reason did they have for the attacks on September 11th before we invaded? Or what about this Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian who went to University in London, where was he oppressed by the West?

 

Like invading countries and killing people in the name of "Democracy" and "Freedom"?

 

You're correct, at no point would I disagree. I am completly against our presence in Afghanistan or Iraq.

 

I get were you're coming from, but I don't understand how you can attempt to defend the terrorist actions of non-afghan or Iraqi citizens, never mind the actions of British Muslim terrorists.

[wibble]

I get were you're coming from, but I don't understand how you can attempt to defend the terrorist actions of non-afghan or Iraqi citizens, never mind the actions of British Muslim terrorists.

 

At what point do I defend the actions of terrorists? All I am saying is that I can understand how someone can get that worked up. I haven't said that it is right and proper.

 

If you read my posts you'll see that all I want is for people to look more deeply at the causes of radical Islam. It has been fired by the pressures that the West have created.

[DikT.]

Surely by return the West should be fired up by Islamic terrorism? Acts in Indonesia etc have not sparked off British or Australian Christians running round blowing up flights flying to Saudi or UAE. I cannot see what a Nigerian hopes to gain from trying to blow up a flight going to America, especially when I am sure there would have been a few other nigerians on the flight as well going by what I see at Murtallah Mohammed International.

[shaun.lawson]

Can you imagine what the reaction to the banking collapse would have been if we didn't have all of the war things to think about and the fear that brings to peoples lives.

 

If we were only to have the finances to worry about I think people would have been banging down the doors of the RBS to hang Fred the Shred by the neck until dead.

 

What went down there was huge and the brow-beaten populace let it go by without a whimper. Do not under-estimate how long and hard the general population of Britain will work to pay off the debt that the banking crisis created, and morons on this board jump to defend bankers bonuses. It defies belief.

 

Again to keep the Status Quo there needs to be bonuses - so that the bankers don't leave en masse. Well when a system can be held to ransom by the employees in that way then it is time to create a new system.

 

Disagree. I don't think the threat of terrorism had anything to do with the reaction to the banking crisis. There's all sorts of reasons the public didn't rise in tumult: the biggest being we moan and are very cynical, but just don't do that sort of thing in the UK. It doesn't happen much across the rest of the West either.

 

Agree in large part with your previous post though - especially on the with us or against us polarisation you discussed.

[The Mighty Thor]

Some good stuff on this thread and some fairly hackneyed arguments too.

 

It doesn't take a huge amount of intellect to trot out the 'American imperialism' argument and to slate the 'foreign policy' of the US and the seemingly un-ending support of that foreign policy by the UK government of the day. I saw a comment about taking the 'Sky News view' i'd counter that with my opinion that there is a certain amount of the 'Al jezeera' view on here too.

 

What I can't understand and get my head around is how successive British governments have allowed the UK to become a safe haven and breeding ground for fundamentalists and radical islamists who appear to have set up a network of recruiters and trainers right here amongst us.

 

I saw a comment in an article yesterday about 'Londonistan' and how London was the major centre now for western Islamic terrorism. How is that possible?

 

Could it be decades of allowing our core values of freedom of speech and civil rights to be turned against us? It appears our very tolerance of others is our blindspot, liberalism is the shield behind which the mullahs of the London mosques can run around shouting the odds about destroying the west and enforcing sharia law and we all sit back and think they've got a bit of a nerve but hey they have the right to protest don't they?

 

Do they though? How many Richard Reids and this latest geezer does there have to be before enough is enough?

 

I hate to get all Richard Littlejohn but the pish is being taken on a grand scale.

 

As an additional point the Northern Irish situation stopped being about religion a long time ago. Nowadays it's all about money and you effectively have factions that 'control' the usual mafia-type endeavours in the province, drugs, prostitution, protection etc.

[AlphonseCapone]

At what point do I defend the actions of terrorists? All I am saying is that I can understand how someone can get that worked up. I haven't said that it is right and proper.

 

If you read my posts you'll see that all I want is for people to look more deeply at the causes of radical Islam. It has been fired by the pressures that the West have created.

 

 

By understanding why they would do it, you're suggesting there are valid reasons for doing it. In my view, there is nothing that makes killing innocenct people understandable, whether it be terrorists or occupying forces.

 

Sorry but what pressure from the west been applied to British Muslim terrorists who live in this country? They have all the freedoms and rights they could dream off, they have chances that people in most parts of the world don't have. Do you really believe they are so moved because of the plight of innocent people in Afghanistan or is it more likely because they are taking it as a personal insult on what they view as the dominant and only religion the world should follow?

[Professor.Arturo]

Here's a site for those on here that think the poor wee muslims are getting a hard time

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

 

But I'm sure you'll discard the facts there as lies and propaganda.

 

MOD EDIT

[felix]

Here's a site for those on here that think the poor wee muslims are getting a hard time

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

 

But I'm sure you'll discard the facts there as lies and propaganda.

 

MOD EDIT

 

The link may contain many facts, however it's thrust seems to be in tallying attrocities carried out by muslims and attributing them to Islam ; which is a bit like saying the nazis were a by-product of catholicism or slavery's an outcome of Christianity, or Islam, whichever way you look at it.

 

No-one would deny there's radical muslims who seek to destroy infidels, just as there's a significant number of mass murderers who carry out equally devestating acts of aggression in the name of God.

 

The Detroit firework bomber may or may not have been a "radical" muslim but he certainly seemed to be so upset with western foreign policy, that he decided to blow up his genitals. The London bombers weren't radical, islamicised muslims, they were intelligent respected members of society, some of whom didn't outwardly show any religious leanings at all . Their hatered of the UK's foreign policy however was explicit in their jihad videos.

 

It's easy to simplify world events into good / evil ; christian / muslim or terrorist / aggressor and as someone has already said, this good/evil dichotomy makes us easier to control and more accepting of decisions which otherwise, should be subject to much more scrutiny.

[The Mighty Thor]

The London bombers weren't radical, islamicised muslims, they were intelligent respected members of society, some of whom didn't outwardly show any religious leanings at all . Their hatered of the UK's foreign policy however was explicit in their jihad videos.

 

I beg to differ.

 

Anyone that is prepared to detonate a bomb on a train or a bus, killing themselves in the process, i would class as fairly radical.

 

In fact a jihad is by default a struggle to defend Isalm in this case by 'military' action against the 'aggressors' by blowing up underground train carriages and a London bus.

 

As for the description of them as 'intelligent respected members of society'? really?

[AlphonseCapone]

No-one would deny there's radical muslims who seek to destroy infidels, just as there's a significant number of mass murderers who carry out equally devestating acts of aggression in the name of God.

 

The London bombers weren't radical, islamicised muslims, they were intelligent respected members of society, some of whom didn't outwardly show any religious leanings at all . Their hatered of the UK's foreign policy however was explicit in their jihad videos.

 

Blowing yourself up is probably up high on the radical league table.

 

Why aren't Protestants, Catholics, Sikhs, Jews or Athiests blowing themselves and innocent people up in this country over the UK's foreign policy as I'm pretty sure there are many in the above religions who hate our foreign policy as well. The reason is probably because none are radical, extreme, religious fanatics with warped views.

[wibble]

Surely by return the West should be fired up by Islamic terrorism? Acts in Indonesia etc have not sparked off British or Australian Christians running round blowing up flights flying to Saudi or UAE. I cannot see what a Nigerian hopes to gain from trying to blow up a flight going to America, especially when I am sure there would have been a few other nigerians on the flight as well going by what I see at Murtallah Mohammed International.

 

People have been fired up by it and people have been attacked in the street for looking a bit muslim. I remember one poor Sikh got killed in America because he wore a turban.

 

I see the difference, in that the West doesn't do suicide bombing, but that would be because we don't feel so helpless that we have to resort to such extremes. We feel that our military and our police forces are strong enough to hunt down our enemies and remove them for us. These people don't feel that way so they have to look to themselves to exact some sort of revenge.

 

The number of suicide bombers, if you take out the Palestinian ones, can probably be counted in the 10's. From well over a billion muslims there have been maybe 30 people mad enough to sign up as suicide bombers.

 

Amongst Britain's meager 60 million people we have bred degenerates like Fred West and Dr Shipman, Mira Hindley, Peter Sutcliffe and other kiddy torturers and various other sickos. If we took the 30 worst British offenders over the last 10 years as being representative of the British public then we'd probably want to destroy Britain.

 

That is what the knee-jerk reactionaries do on here and in the Daily Express and in the BNP. They look at the actions of 2 or 3 people and brand every muslim a terror loving maniac. It's quite pathetic.

 

The Nigerian guy was grassed up by his father. Hardly some sort of muslim conspiracy when your dad dobs you in, is it? He was a nutter, his Dad told the authorities, the authorities didn't do anything. That's who people should be mad at.

 

Catholic priests have caused way more suffering in Britain than muslims ever have. People need to develop a bit of perspective before they brand all muslims terrorists.

[redjambo]

Blowing yourself up is probably up high on the radical league table.

 

Why aren't Protestants, Catholics, Sikhs, Jews or Athiests blowing themselves and innocent people up in this country over the UK's foreign policy as I'm pretty sure there are many in the above religions who hate our foreign policy as well. The reason is probably because none are radical, extreme, religious fanatics with warped views.

 

Maybe not in this country at the moment, but in the US the increasingly radical nature of the religious right is starting to worry a lot of observers (see e.g. http://rawstory.com/2009/11/evangelist-religious-trawling-assassins/). And have we all really forgotten Oklahoma City already? (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Oklahoma_bombing)

[Das Root]

I would expect the airlines to start reducing hand baggage allowances, resulting in passengers having to put more in the hold (for a charge). Security to take twice as long as previously with everyone getting a good frisking before and after from mini-Hitlers with a power complex. No need for terrorists to do more than the odd crazy on a plane every year or so, our own "security forces" then lock down the country a little bit more causing far greater issue and inconvenience to your average traveller than any bomb could do.

[AlphonseCapone]

]Maybe not in this country at the moment' date=' but in the US the increasingly radical nature of the religious right is starting to worry a lot of observers[/b'] (see e.g. http://rawstory.com/2009/11/evangelist-religious-trawling-assassins/). And have we all really forgotten Oklahoma City already? (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Oklahoma_bombing)

 

Interesting read, and fair enough but it is a very, very long way from being able to be compared to the London bombers etc.

 

No, and without taking anything away from that tragedy, it doesn't scratch the surface of attacks by Muslim terrorists;

 

Oklahoma = 168 victims

Sept 11th = 2973 victims/London = 56 victims/Mumbai = 175 victims etc.

[wibble]

Interesting read, and fair enough but it is a very, very long way from being able to be compared to the London bombers etc.

 

No, and without taking anything away from that tragedy, it doesn't scratch the surface of attacks by Muslim terrorists;

Oklahoma = 168 victims

Sept 11th = 2973 victims/London = 56 victims/Mumbai = 175 victims etc.

 

You are joking eh? Oklahoma was worse than London by a long margin and every bit as bad as Mumbai. It is EXACTLY the same as those attacks. It is also exactly the same as all of the IRA bombs. Perpetrated by deranged white men. Being a fundamentalist looney is not the sole preserve of the muslim community. There are plenty amongst the white races.

[Ulysses]

By understanding why they would do it, you're suggesting there are valid reasons for doing it.

 

That's something of a fallacy. I don't think MJ is suggesting that there a valid reasons for terrorist acts. But I do think he is pointing out that the people who commit them believe that there are valid reasons for what they do - and explaining some of the reasons why they have come to believe that.

 

The fact that we don't think something is valid is beside the point from the perspective of the person doing it, if you see what I mean.

[AlphonseCapone]

You are joking eh? Oklahoma was worse than London by a long margin and every bit as bad as Mumbai. It is EXACTLY the same as those attacks. It is also exactly the same as all of the IRA bombs. Perpetrated by deranged white men. Being a fundamentalist looney is not the sole preserve of the muslim community. There are plenty amongst the white races.

 

Of course it was, but redm made a point and I responded by pointing out that Oklahoma was one incident compared to the many by Muslim terrorists. At no point was I comparing one V one attacks.

 

The IRA didn't bomb Britain because it believed the Catholic religion was the sole and ultimate religion and anyone not following it was an infidel worthy of death.

 

Being a fundamentalist looney is defo not the sole preserve of the muslim community, and thankfully the majority of the muslim community are not fundamentalist loonies, HOWEVER, a large number of fundamentalist loonies are Muslim, and the main threat to our nation and way of living is fundamentalist Muslim loonies.

[graygo]

You are joking eh? Oklahoma was worse than London by a long margin and every bit as bad as Mumbai. It is EXACTLY the same as those attacks. It is also exactly the same as all of the IRA bombs. Perpetrated by deranged white men. Being a fundamentalist looney is not the sole preserve of the muslim community. There are plenty amongst the white races.

 

Racist post IMO.

 

What did the IRA bombings have to do with colour?

 

Are there no Irish sympathisers that are non-white?

[AlphonseCapone]

That's something of a fallacy. I don't think MJ is suggesting that there a valid reasons for terrorist acts. But I do think he is pointing out that the people who commit them believe that there are valid reasons for what they do - and explaining some of the reasons why they have come to believe that.

 

The fact that we don't think something is valid is beside the point from the perspective of the person doing it, if you see what I mean.

 

That's fair enough if that is what he is doing, but when I read his post below that is not what comes across to me. It reads to me more of an explanation of why their doing it rather than an insight into their beliefs.

 

Ever wondered why a tiny number of them might be mad enough to try these things?

 

Maybe it's because a huge number of Christians are in their countries, armed to the teeth and have wrought havoc in the pursuit of robbing them blind.

 

Maybe if the hundreds of thousands of "Christian" soldiers came home and stayed home there'd be no trouble whatsoever.

[Ulysses]

That's fair enough if that is what he is doing, but when I read his post below that is not what comes across to me. It reads to me more of an explanation of why their doing it rather than an insight into their beliefs.

 

And the difference is?

[AlphonseCapone]

And the difference is?

 

The difference I'm trying to point out, although probably not very well is that his post does not come across as him trying to point out why these people MAY feel the need to carry out these attacks rather than HIM PERSONALLY BELIEVING they have valid reasons (not beliefs but proper, justified reasons) to carry out these attacks.

[wibble]

That's something of a fallacy. I don't think MJ is suggesting that there a valid reasons for terrorist acts. But I do think he is pointing out that the people who commit them believe that there are valid reasons for what they do - and explaining some of the reasons why they have come to believe that.

 

The fact that we don't think something is valid is beside the point from the perspective of the person doing it, if you see what I mean.

 

Thanks Uly.

 

I cannot and would never say that I support any attack on innocent civilians.

 

What I am saying is that the reasons the terrorists use to justify their attacks are genuine and if the West were to stop meddling in their affairs the terrorists wouldn't keep attacking.

 

It's like having a wasps nest in a tree in your local park. You can live and let live and you probably won't get stung, or you can whack the nest with a stick and take your chances.

 

You shouldn't blame the wasps for stinging you though when you have whacked the nest in the first place.

[graygo]

Thanks Uly.

 

I cannot and would never say that I support any attack on innocent civilians.

 

What I am saying is that the reasons the terrorists use to justify their attacks are genuine and if the West were to stop meddling in their affairs the terrorists wouldn't keep attacking.

 

It's like having a wasps nest in a tree in your local park. You can live and let live and you probably won't get stung, or you can whack the nest with a stick and take your chances.

 

You shouldn't blame the wasps for stinging you though when you have whacked the nest in the first place.

 

Taken from a reputable website-

 

What areYellow Jackets?

The European Wasp, also called Yellow Jacket Wasp can attack as a group and may sting many times which is very painful. The Common Yellowjacket (Paravespula vulgaris) (Linnaeus) (commonly called "bees") like all wasps will defend their nests, but the Yellowjackets and hornets are the most aggressive.

Yellowjackets may also attack people or animals when unprovoked. Wasp, hornet and yellowjacket stings can be life-threatening to persons who are allergic to the venom, or if a person is stung many times simultaneously. People who develop hives, difficulty breathing or swallowing, wheezing or similar symptoms of allergic reaction should seek medical attention immediately.

[Ulysses]

Taken from a reputable website-

 

What areYellow Jackets?

The European Wasp, also called Yellow Jacket Wasp can attack as a group and may sting many times which is very painful. The Common Yellowjacket (Paravespula vulgaris) (Linnaeus) (commonly called "bees") like all wasps will defend their nests, but the Yellowjackets and hornets are the most aggressive.

Yellowjackets may also attack people or animals when unprovoked. Wasp, hornet and yellowjacket stings can be life-threatening to persons who are allergic to the venom, or if a person is stung many times simultaneously. People who develop hives, difficulty breathing or swallowing, wheezing or similar symptoms of allergic reaction should seek medical attention immediately.

 

 

He was using an analogy which for most purposes fits the argument. Wandering off on a tangential discussion of entomology probably doesn't help - unless you have a reputable source that can confirm for us that most Muslims are also wasps*.

 

*See what I did there?

[graygo]

He was using an analogy which for most purposes fits the argument. Wandering off on a tangential discussion of entomology probably doesn't help - unless you have a reputable source that can confirm for us that most Muslims are also wasps*.

 

*See what I did there?

 

LOL. Fair point made with no small amount of humour.

[Ulysses]

The difference I'm trying to point out, although probably not very well is that his post does not come across as him trying to point out why these people MAY feel the need to carry out these attacks rather than HIM PERSONALLY BELIEVING they have valid reasons (not beliefs but proper, justified reasons) to carry out these attacks.

 

If a fella holding a gun or a bomb thinks it is legitimate to use it - let's say on you, me or MelbourneJambo - what difference does it make what we think? He's the bloke with the weapon.

 

If we want to deal with the issue of "Islamist terrorism" properly, it makes sense for us to understand how and why it happens. If we are to analyse that so that we can understand it fully, it helps to be rational rather than emotional when doing so. When it comes to what we call "Muslim fundamentalists", what passes for analysis on our part tends to be more hysterical than rational.

 

There are lessons of a kind to be learned about this from recent history. Whether or not our governments are learning those lesssons is not clear - but our media most certainly aren't.

[Ulysses]

LOL. Fair point made with no small amount of humour.

 

[graygo]

If a fella holding a gun or a bomb thinks it is legitimate to use it - let's say on you, me or MelbourneJambo - what difference does it make what we think? He's the bloke with the weapon.

 

Rules of engagement surely dictate what is a "legitimate" target or does that only apply to the allied forces?

 

If we want to deal with the issue of "Islamist terrorism" properly, it makes sense for us to understand how and why it happens. If we are to analyse that so that we can understand it fully, it helps to be rational rather than emotional when doing so. When it comes to what we call "Muslim fundamentalists", what passes for analysis on our part tends to be more hysterical than rational.

 

Yes because what we call "Muslim fundamentalists" are always rational and never hysterical!!

 

There are lessons of a kind to be learned about this from recent history. Whether or not our governments are learning those lesssons is not clear - but our media most certainly aren't.

 

No argument fromme on that one.

[Ulysses]

Rules of engagement surely dictate what is a "legitimate" target.....

 

Whose rules of engagement? One of the golden rules of guerrilla warfare is "if the rules of engagement mean you must lose, then change the rules".

 

 

Yes because what we call "Muslim fundamentalists" are always rational and never hysterical!!

 

I'm not sure what point you're getting at here. Whether these guys are rational or not, we have to be rational in our analysis, so that we don't make bad decisions.