The London Bombings - a Rant [Archive]

DragonKnight

07-07-2005, 01:20 PM

I never said I was happy about this attack or any future ones, you creep. Don't misrepresent what I wrote which has now been deleted. :mad:

I have been following the Iraq war EVERYDAY on the internet by going to sites covering the war far better than television and reading about looking at graphic photos of the real war. The suffering American soldiers, the Iraqi civilian dead.

It has been pretty intense. My point was simple that the London bombings and the hysterical reaction seems oddly out of place after following not only the Iraq war but the endless bombings and killings in Lebanon.

I compare it to the tsunami. Yes, it was horrible that several 100 even 1000s of Europeans died but 250,000 Asians got wiped out as well.

If many of you who are outraged by my comments had actually been following the horrors in Iraq and Lebanon that is rarely shown on TV you might have had the same reaction as me.

I'm all in favor of a brutal response to the attack and I'm in NO WAY happy about the bombings.
Okay, so what is the whole point again? London'ers are overdoing it just cause a few bombs and a few dozen people are killed? Or the people of this board can't help but be concerned cause we have a few of our own out there (including my girlfriend).

Just because you've been saturating yourself with pictures and events of the war in Iraq doesn't mean the rest of us have to be like you and compare numbers and go, "Hmm, only 37 dead...just 700 injured...I think they're overdoing the drama." Hell, someone sets off a few bombs here in Los Angeles in what can be perceived as a terrorist attack, I'd be going "wtf?!" with the rest of the world.

Hey, I feel ya. Lotta hell going on in the world. Ton of fucked up things. But I ain't gonna disregard nor match numbers and the timing just to say, "Well, the reactions seem oddly...out of place."

BTW, I'm heading out to London in August. Feel free to join me on visiting some of the victims who've lost their limbs. Or the ones that died, we can visit their gravemarkers and you can express your comments then. Just cause these aren't American soldiers, Iraqi citizens, nor other people who have suffered constantly around the world, doesn't mean their suffering isn't real.

Besides, if you're so riled up about the sufferings of the world, join the Peace Corps instead of trolling on message boards. Make some use of your time. Cause really, you're just wasting it here and you sure as hell ain't making a difference either.

Meki

07-07-2005, 01:24 PM

Grasshopper, your post was deleted for a reason. You didn’t have to repost something that echoes that sentiment. However, since you did... I will echo my own statement that I made. Whether it’s one life or countless, they are all equally invaluable. You should not have made light of such tragedies.

And since my well wishes were deleted also, I like to say again that my thoughts go out to all the victims and their families, as well as all the YW members in London. Please be careful out there.

Grasshopper

07-07-2005, 01:44 PM

Okay, so what is the whole point again? London'ers are overdoing it just cause a few bombs and a few dozen people are killed? Or the people of this board can't help but be concerned cause we have a few of our own out there (including my girlfriend).
OK, I'll play the "what if" game which is so popular with many people.

If this exact same type bombing had happened in Beirut, Baghdad or Riyadh would you even care?

World the world's media show it much notice?

If the dead and dying were mostly brown and non-European would it have made the news for more than a day?

It's bad no doubt by the reaction is irrational. London is a huge city. You're not going to get killed there even if another bombing takes place.

Besides, by reacting with hysterics you only feed the terrorists!!

Look what they have to say -

In the new statement, the group said "the heroic mujahedeen carried out a blessed attack in London, and now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west."

"We warned the British government and the British people repeatedly. We have carried out our promise and carried out a military attack in Britain after great efforts by the heroic mujahedeen over a long period to ensure its success."

It was signed "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe."

They love it when people act like the world is coming to an end.

It's like a powerful drug to them.

I wish people would realise that and not give the enemy that extra thrill.

You got to be cool about it all. You know - James Bond-like.

Seek out and destroy the enemy. Good show, I say!

achtungbaby

07-07-2005, 01:54 PM

But I ain't gonna disregard nor match numbers and the timing just to say, "Well, the reactions seem oddly...out of place."

...Just cause these aren't American soldiers, Iraqi citizens, nor other people who have suffered constantly around the world, doesn't mean their suffering isn't real.
Very well said. I remember on 9/11, hours after the towers went down, on this one forum I'd been posting on (which shall remain nameless), a few folks decided to take what I call the "keepin it real" approach, ridiculously minimizing the catastrophic loss of life and instead focusing on how America had it comin'.

Hello! It's one thing to speak out and condemn U.S. foreign policy, it's another thing to have so much thinly-veiled indifference towards humanity.

robotic

07-07-2005, 01:59 PM

If this exact same type bombing had happened in Beirut, Baghdad or Riyadh would you even care?

i don't know man, would you? :biggrin:

i mean the majority of people there are muslims ;_;

DragonKnight

07-07-2005, 02:00 PM

^AB summed it up quite nicely. So Grasshopper...little man...you ain't even worthy of a response...troll. Laf. :rolleyes:

achtungbaby

07-07-2005, 02:01 PM

You got to be cool about it all. You know - James Bond-like.
That's the cool thing about the internet -- you could be thousands of miles away, removed from a situation entirely, and still "understand" everything as if you're there yourself.

Anyway, let's stop this topic digression...there are more important matters to discuss.

achtungbaby

07-07-2005, 02:14 PM

I'm actually surprised that the death toll isn't higher. I'm sure whoever orchestrated such a coordinated attack is probably surprised too.

Grasshopper

07-07-2005, 02:22 PM

i don't know man, would you? :biggrin:

i mean the majority of people there are muslims ;_;
No more than the British, the world's media or everybody else here.

^AB summed it up quite nicely. So Grasshopper...little man...you ain't even worthy of a response...troll. Laf. :rolleyes:
Well, your response wasn't worthy but you did nonetheless.

Werd. Well, seems like things have calmed down a bit. Bus services have resumed in central London.
Oh no. Let's not have calm. Please no. Let's get back to the - "now Britain is burning with fear and terror." :rolleyes:

Let's not disappoint the terrorists.

I'm actually surprised that the death toll isn't higher. I'm sure whoever orchestrated such a coordinated attack is probably surprised too.
Please, don't minimize the tragedy.

hooligan

07-07-2005, 02:43 PM

Hey Grasshopper, how's Iraq going? Oh, you haven't enlisted? That's a crying shame, all this talk about terrorism, I thought you were going to singlehandedly defeat the insurgency.

I'm actually surprised that the death toll isn't higher. I'm sure whoever orchestrated such a coordinated attack is probably surprised too.

Me neither, I thought it would have jumped to around 150-300. Rush hour and bombs, talk about a bad combination. I heard each of those trains carry about 900 people.

Arex

07-07-2005, 03:39 PM

The pattern of these attacks is a puzzle. It's an attack on London, but even for random targets, the way that they were co-ordinated seems to have been aimed at multi-ethnic Britain.

One of the bombs - at Aldgate - was very near to the East London mosque (Britain's second largest). Aldgate is a very heavy Muslim area. We will learn in a few days whether there are Muslim casualties.

Then there's the Edgware Road Station. The station is in a Arab enclave. Many Lebanese restaurants and shisha cafes line the street. Al-Dar restaurant, which seems to be somewhat famous, is there.

Even the bomb at Liverpool Street Station is a puzzle - a hit right at the heart of the City financial district. The streets between Liverpool Street and St Pauls are largely aimed at the Japanese population - many Japanese businesses, bookshops, restuarants.

And Woburn Place / Tavistock Square - the streets there are full of foreign students.

All a coincidence?*Puts conspiracy theorist hat on*

Coincidence? Or maybe it was an inside job by the Blair/Bush administrations to give the British government an excuse to stay in the war, to "strengthen" everyone's resolve. Only they didn't want to target white civilians (i.e., the majority) 'cause that might have had the effect of further weakening support for Britain's participation in the war.

And, while I'm not sure how much attention people are giving the Downing Street Memos over there, but this is one way of diverting attention from them or providing an after-the-fact excuse to continue the campaign in Iraq. (Only, some will argue that this is what you get when you fix evidence around policy).

Or, perhaps it was a lone job by the Blair administration to give him an excuse to pull out of the costly war.

*takes conspiracy theorist hat off*

Assuming "foreign" terrorists were responsible, it might've just been that the ethnic enclaves were the easiest places for them to move around, plan and set up the bombings. Who knows.

Either way, I'm glad to hear that you guys're okay and things appear to be calming down. Be safe!

Chad

07-07-2005, 05:17 PM

*Puts conspiracy theorist hat on*
Or maybe it was the National Front.

Chu Chi

07-07-2005, 05:48 PM

I'm actually surprised that the death toll isn't higher. I'm sure whoever orchestrated such a coordinated attack is probably surprised too.

maybe,

maybe not.

Hmmm... lets see know, just when support for the "war on terror" is tanking, bombs go off in London.

How convenient.

2 minutes hate starts in

five

four

three

two

one

Shogun Empress

07-07-2005, 06:10 PM

I hope you all come out safe during these attacks. I say 'during' because it might not be over yet. There could be a part two tommorow.

Someone please post videos of the explosions. I saw camerphone footage of one of the explosions but it wasn't clear enough IMO

This is what happens if you invade another country, their loyal rebels (terrorists to us) will retaliate.It seems like there are different types of terrorism. Examples being, American colonists against the British Empire at the start of the American Revolution, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph and the abortion clinics...

It doesn't matter if we invaded them or not, if it isn't Al Quaida then it will be someone else. Terrorisim happens. Like $hit.

SunWuKong

07-07-2005, 06:50 PM

Not necessarily. Remember Madrid?

not saying that they definitely didn't do it, but an al Qaida group also claimed responsibility for the NYC power outage a couple of years ago.

Atealtha

07-07-2005, 07:08 PM

You know, after 9-11 as I was coming home to shower all the soot off, all the classmates called each other to make sure we were all ok. And a few days later war was declared and we all supported Bush. Then slowly it was diverted.

And something like this had to happen. What does it take to realize the guys responsible for 9-11 are ignored?

DragonKnight

07-07-2005, 07:13 PM

Thanks for the update Dragon.
Just passing on the info as it comes. :smile:

hooligan

07-07-2005, 09:54 PM

I may be making light of the situation, but who thinks this is going to push the Karl Rove thing on the back burner and once again make MSMedia cover another human tragedy instead of focusing on scandals?

Chad

07-07-2005, 10:35 PM

ahsingjai

07-07-2005, 10:51 PM

Or the beginning of 1984 big brother.

robotic

07-08-2005, 12:25 AM

No more than the British, the world's media or everybody else here.

unless you equally sympathise with tragedies that happen all across the world, then maybe you don't need to find fault with others :wink:

haplesshobo

07-08-2005, 12:28 AM

This seems like the largest unconventional war ever to be fought and the first of its kind. I don't see how it is going to end. I'm sure it will end (because everything does) but I guess I'm just not imaginative enough to see how it could happen.
Al-Qaeda shows no signs of backing down and neither does the U.S.
I guess two possible endings:
al-Qaeda fades out as more of their cells are busted and just becomes another "has been" movement, though still alive in numbers too small to do anything.
or
the U.S. finally decides that holding on to territories in the Middle East isn't really worth the trouble anymore and leaves the people there to fend for themselves

that would be incredibly shortsighted and dangerous if the united states were to leave because of the trobules we are facing.

these terrorists would still regard us as decadent and dangerous. the world has become increasing connected, and you can not shut yourself off from the rest of the world. our ideas and products and entertainment would still 'contaminate' their homes.

If the US completely pulled out of the Middle East, at least two things would happen in very short order:

1) The Saudi monarchy would fall to something much worse, as would (probably) a half-dozen other regimes. One could argue that it would be much more morally wrong to allow vast wealth and an entire country to fall into the hands of Bin Laden and his friends, who would use it for ends that are infinitely more immoral than supporting a corrupt monarchy.

2) The region would become the plaything of other big powers which are much less interested in world peace and foreign aid than the US is. Europe buys more oil from the ME than we do. Europe's security is more dependent on stabilty in the ME that ours. If the US bugged out of the ME, other powers would swoop in. Their interests would be less closely aligned with the interests of Europe than ours. They would exploit the region for their own gain. Europe may think that's what happens now, but that is their knee-jerk anti-Americanism talking. They ain't seen nuthin' yet.

If any one of these things happened, the US would be much worse off. Even Europe would be much worse off.

DragonKnight

07-08-2005, 12:29 AM

unless you equally sympathise with tragedies that happen all across the world, then maybe you don't need to find fault with others :wink:
*pssst*

Read my sig. Trust me on this. :wink: :biggrin:

SunWuKong

07-08-2005, 06:14 AM

This seems like the largest unconventional war ever to be fought and the first of its kind. I don't see how it is going to end. I'm sure it will end (because everything does) but I guess I'm just not imaginative enough to see how it could happen.
Al-Qaeda shows no signs of backing down and neither does the U.S.
I guess two possible endings:
al-Qaeda fades out as more of their cells are busted and just becomes another "has been" movement, though still alive in numbers too small to do anything.
or
the U.S. finally decides that holding on to territories in the Middle East isn't really worth the trouble anymore and leaves the people there to fend for themselves

the first i think is unlikely to happen because many people have been saying for a while now that US involvement in the Middle East is motivating people to join terrorist groups.

that would be incredibly shortsighted and dangerous if the united states were to leave because of the trobules we are facing.

these terrorists would still regard us as decadent and dangerous. the world has become increasing connected, and you can not shut yourself off from the rest of the world. our ideas and products and entertainment would still 'contaminate' their homes.

it's not so much our ideas contaminating their homes. with enough pressure to their own government, they could easily refuse to do commerce with American companies that would bring "our ideas" to their homes.

al Qaida itself was started because the US wouldn't leave the Middle East after Desert Storm. it's the US embargo on Middle Eastern regions and the general American foreign policy in the Middle East - which includes the Israel/Palestine situation - which makes terrorists want to harm us.

VV o n g B a

07-08-2005, 07:18 AM

This seems like the largest unconventional war ever to be fought and the first of its kind. I don't see how it is going to end.this war very possibly won't end in our lifetimes or several of our lifetimes. i mean where do u trace the origins of this conflict? to the first gulf war? to the israeli-arab wars? to the creation of israel? to the crusades? to the sons of abraham? depending upon ur view, this conflict might have been around since civilization was young. we can mitigate it, but this isn't something that is "won."

btw, its good to hear u're ok asvenus.

Banana

07-08-2005, 08:18 AM

This war will never end because you'll never stomp out terrorism.

Sorry to break it to you but it's true. The only thing you can do is lessen the amount of events.

Grasshopper

07-08-2005, 08:21 AM

Hey Grasshopper, how's Iraq going? Oh, you haven't enlisted? That's a crying shame, all this talk about terrorism, I thought you were going to singlehandedly defeat the insurgency.
Why would I want to do that? I don't support the Iraq war.

Saddam was not behind 9-11 and of course he is a secular nationalist - he was a Mafia leader with his own country, Tony Soprano of the desert.

When are you going over to London to cry and hold hands?

Don't forget your candle. :rolleyes:

DragonKnight

07-08-2005, 10:11 AM

I'm actually surprised that the death toll isn't higher. I'm sure whoever orchestrated such a coordinated attack is probably surprised too.
Hmm, was watching the news and some terrorist expert said that the attack overall was extremely sloppy considering the amount of potential lives and damage it could've cost considering that this was during rush hour. For the life of me, I forgot what channel and who the 'expert' was.

tommyhtown

07-08-2005, 01:09 PM

I wonder if the Bush administration will try to captialize on the attack in London to extend the Patriot Act and allow provisions that can potentially take away our civil liberties.

SunWuKong

07-08-2005, 03:44 PM

I wonder if the Bush administration will try to captialize on the attack in London to extend the Patriot Act and allow provisions that can potentially take away our civil liberties.

they're waiting until they're 100% that it was done by an al Qaida group. i don't think they'd get so much support if terrorist acts were committed by domestic groups with absolutely no ties to foreign powers.

Arex

07-08-2005, 04:26 PM

^--- Since when has the Bush administration's rhetoric been constrained by the facts of any given situation?

RX

haplesshobo

07-09-2005, 12:26 PM

it's not so much our ideas contaminating their homes. with enough pressure to their own government, they could easily refuse to do commerce with American companies that would bring "our ideas" to their homes.

al Qaida itself was started because the US wouldn't leave the Middle East after Desert Storm. it's the US embargo on Middle Eastern regions and the general American foreign policy in the Middle East - which includes the Israel/Palestine situation - which makes terrorists want to harm us.

in the long term, is to create an islamic state that follows islam in the way that they see islam, in the middle east. I am sure that their very long term plan is a state that covers most of the middle east, if not all.

as a mid-term goal, they feel that muslim youth is too influenced by western culture, and that mulsim youth and the muslim people will not join their push for a muslim state as long as they (the youth) are intoxicated by western culture. these attacks are meant to show that muslim arabs can have power over the west, and to improve their standing in the eyes of this demographic. even if we were to leave the middle east and remove our footprints, the culture of the west would still filter through via tv, cable, hollywood, etc...

since this long term goal will not be met in the near future, and since the short term goals seems to be working very well, I do not foresee these attacks ending any time in the near future.

yoMAMA

07-09-2005, 12:41 PM

in the long term, is to create an islamic state that follows islam in the way that they see islam, in the middle east. I am sure that their very long term plan is a state that covers most of the middle east, if not all.

if saudi arabia hold an election tomorrow, and it is free and open for all of its citizens to participate, and if they choose a regime that is not friendly to the U.S, I don't see how we can not respect their choices.

unless you are saying that the only good democracy is the one that is friendly to the U.S and its interests.

hooligan

07-09-2005, 01:55 PM

SunWuKong

07-09-2005, 02:01 PM

as a mid-term goal, they feel that muslim youth is too influenced by western culture, and that mulsim youth and the muslim people will not join their push for a muslim state as long as they (the youth) are intoxicated by western culture. these attacks are meant to show that muslim arabs can have power over the west, and to improve their standing in the eyes of this demographic. even if we were to leave the middle east and remove our footprints, the culture of the west would still filter through via tv, cable, hollywood, etc...

see, i think it is entirely possible that their governments won't allow western culture to filter through tv, cable, and such. their frustration comes from the fact that the US government is influencing and affecting their governments and peoples. if we were to deal with them on equal terms instead of, oh let's see, handing out contracts to American firms to rebuild a country that the US itself devastated, or selling weapons to an Israeli state that uses those weapons to discriminate Muslims, or setting up an embargo on countries that the US dislikes, then there would be less incentive for them to carry out terrorist acts.

Grasshopper

07-09-2005, 08:45 PM

if saudi arabia hold an election tomorrow, and it is free and open for all of its citizens to participate, and if they choose a regime that is not friendly to the U.S, I don't see how we can not respect their choices.

unless you are saying that the only good democracy is the one that is friendly to the U.S and its interests.
Ever heard the expression - "One man, one vote........one election."?

True, the Bush administration does not want "democracy" in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan - for obvious reasons. They only want to spread "democracy" to countries whose governments are perceived as a threat to Israel and the US.

As long as the country's government has positive relations with Israel and the US, the democracy issue is on the back burner at best.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/09/AR2005070901109.html

NYC Man Among Missing After London Blasts

By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press
Saturday, July 9, 2005

NEW YORK -- A Bronx man who moved abroad after the 2001 terrorist attacks was among those missing in London after the transit bombings there, his friends and relatives said.

Michael Matsushita, 37, has not been heard from since Thursday when he left for work. He normally takes a subway that passes through London's King's Cross station, near the site of the deadliest of the three subway bombings.

His fiancee, Rosie Cowan, told The Evening Standard of London that they met while working as international tour guides in Vietnam and recently moved together to England.

A woman who identified herself as his aunt, Eileen Matsushita, said outside the family's Bronx apartment building Saturday that she was optimistic that he will found alive.

"We're just going to stay home and watch TV, pray, and wait for a good phone call," she said, before declining to talk further about her nephew.

A spokesman for the U.S. State Department said he had no information on Matsushita. U.S. officials have said that at least four Americans were injured in the blasts.

None of the 49 known dead has yet been identified, and Scotland Yard has declined to issue a list of people unaccounted for.

Police said Saturday they were looking into more than 1,000 missing-person reports, although they do not believe more than 50 of them are connected to the bombings, suggesting the death toll will remain below 100.

haplesshobo

07-09-2005, 08:48 PM

UK has to lose a bit of the political correctness in this type of situation and crack down. Although, it might be doubtful since Blair's PC brigade decided that it would be insensitive to celebrate the British victory at Trafalgar by actually referring to it. In real terms this meant that a 'son et lumiére' sea battle reenactment was referred to as being between Red and Blue. What next, should the USA stop celebrating Fourth of July?

From what I've heard, 'Community leaders' are complaining in the media that it's not fair that young muslim men are stopped and searched, and the lefty brigade wring their hands about their rights. We need to be very clear with this section of the community- they will simply have to understand that until Al Queda starts recruiting elderly white Christian women, their young men are likely to be stopped. Those who support the terrorists and help to spread their hatred, such as the Al-Muhajiroun organisation, should be proscribed, prosecuted and deported - instead, their leaders live on welfare benefits, protected by lunatic legislation and preying on impressionable, badly-educated youths from unassimilated communities.

If asian males were going to start blowing themselves up, then i'd go on record as saying there's no way to justify the actions and i would understand why i would always get stopped and searched in that type of situation. Not only would it protect rest of society, it would also protect my ass from well from getting blown up by radical asian men.

I don't know if Blair will be willing to do this given his record where he effectively capitulated to england's terrorism problems, Sinn Fein/PIRA. While they did not achieve their primary aim, they certainly were succesful. IRA wants the British out, gone, and Ireland united under their rule. Neither has happened. Yet they did get their political party and leadership legitimized, got lots of terrorists released from jail, and basically forced London to negotiate a power-sharing agreement with them.

mr. x

07-10-2005, 12:16 AM

I don't know what it's like to be Muslim in the UK and for the most part I'm sure they don't support terrorism even if they don't particularly like Western power's policies, but it does make me wonder why the hell these kids who openly hate these very countries continue living there. Is it just cuz of the homogenous community they are able to put up with? Granted there are parts of the U.S. I'd rather not live but if I honestly hated it the country so openly they'd have a point if they asked me why I didn't move to Canada (and I don't just mean that whole slightest-of-Bush-criticism = "why do you hate our freedom")

haplesshobo

07-10-2005, 02:33 AM

So are you trying to justify racial profiling?

Of course terrorism and terrorist suspects need to be investigated and prosecuted aggressively. However getting rid of civil rights and liberties is not a legitimate means to achieve those ends. And by your own reasoning, the U.S government should have racially profile white man after the oklahoma city bombing [and I'd like to point out that immediately after the bombing, people were assuming that middle eastern jihadist were the culprit.

i really wish we could get viet dinh to visit this forum, as he would be much more eloquent and explain it better than i could ever hope to do. but, here it goes....

all we do know about the terrorists is that they are relativly young muslim men. if this is the only thread, that is what we should pursue even if it may be a little unpleasant to some innocent people. so, if a muslim man tries to board a airplane, then i would have no qualms if the security paid extra attention to him and made him unpack his luggage.

its like the ticking bomb scenario. in such situations, as the consequences ratchet up, sometimes you need to do things which you would otherwise not need to do for things with lesser consequences. if somebody stole a watch, then it wouldn't be worth it to physically shake them or deprive them of sleep. but, if somebody has information that there's a ticking nuclear time bomb in nyc, then we have to do things like that to get info cause the consequences would be too serious.

this isn't a civil law matter. we are at war with those who seek to kill and maim as many of us as they can. for too long, we've treated terrorism as civil law matter for the police to handle.

and, in your example of timothy mcveigh, if the police knew that it was possible link to white supremacists cause white supremacists had previously blown up other federal buildings, then i wouldn't have a problem if the police paid extra attention to anybody who had the confederate flag on their cars like the general lee.

hooligan

07-10-2005, 10:02 AM

I'm personally wondering who's taken responsibility for these bombings. I'm waiting for answers.

AngryABCGirl

07-10-2005, 11:31 AM

The last major bomb outrage in London was in April 1999, when (White) David Copeland, the so-called Nailbomber, let off a series of devices in an attempt to spark a race war.

Regarding recent events, thankfully, the authorities here recognise that this wasn't Islam or Muslims detonating the bombs. As a reminder, as I pointed out earlier, one of London's biggest Muslim areas, around Aldgate, was one of the areas targeted.

The purpose of the bombers, and their ally on this board, is to ruin good relations between the Muslim community and wider British society. Like David Copeland before them, they will fail. And they will feel British justice, not revenge.

Considering where the bombs were placed, I wouldn't be suprised if this was done by a group like the National Front.

nola

07-10-2005, 11:49 AM

Or the bombs were placed where the terrorists could fit in. Maybe it was too hard for the terrorists to infiltrate an all-white or white collar area.

Martino

07-10-2005, 12:08 PM

Or the bombs were placed where the terrorists could fit in. Maybe it was too hard for the terrorists to infiltrate an all-white or white collar area.

In a multi-cultural city?

Grasshopper

07-10-2005, 12:31 PM

Regarding recent events, thankfully, the authorities here recognise that this wasn't Islam or Muslims detonating the bombs. As a reminder, as I pointed out earlier, one of London's biggest Muslim areas, around Aldgate, was one of the areas targeted.
Well, we are not sure exactly who carried out the bombings or their motives. A muslim radical group has claimed responsiblity but that could be a hoax.

But if in fact the killers were muslims motivated by a jihadist ideology then in fact it was MUSLIM or Islamic terrorism. It is ahistorical and dishonest to deny it.

Islam was never a religion of White peace loving hippies from the '60s. Islam has always had a violent, imperial component and I think it is the height of arrogance for White Europeans and "liberal" Americans to continue to lecture everyone that "Islam is the religion of peace or that "True muslims are non violent".

Many muslims in fact disagree with this claim. And so do scholars of Islamic history.

Saying Islam is merely a religion of peace is like saying the British Empire was the empire of peace. Islam has had a violent, imperial agenda from it's inception and many muslims believe it is the height of Jihad to continue this "World redeeming mission".

And to do it violently.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/070805M.shtml

"....The terrorists refer to the bombings, which they say they carefully planned over a long period, as a "blessed raid."

They are recalling the struggle between the wealthy, pagan trading entrepot, Mecca, and the beleaguered, persecuted Muslim community in Medina in early seventh century west Arabia.

The Muslims around the Prophet Mohammed responded to the Meccan determination to wipe them out by raiding the caravans of their wealthy rivals, depriving them of their profits and gradually strangling them.

The victorious Muslims, having cut the idol-worshipping Meccan merchants off, marched into the city in 630.

Al-Qaida teaches its acolytes that great Western metropolises such as New York and London are the Meccas of this age, centers of paganism, immorality and massive wealth, from which plundering expeditions are launched against hapless, pious Muslims.

This symbology helps explain why the City of London subway stops were especially targeted, since it is the economic center of London.

A "raid" such as the Muslim bombings is considered not just a military action but also a religious ritual.

If the communiqué of Qaida al-Jihad in Europe proves authentic, the London bombings are the second major instance of terrorism in Europe directly related to the Iraq war. In March of 2004, the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (French acronym: GICM) launched a massive attack on trains in Madrid in order to punish Spain for its participation in the US-led coalition in Iraq, following on their bombing of Casablanca the previous year. "

Not exclusively white, particularly The City (our WTC).
nola is confused if she thinks the WTC in NYC was some sort of White bastion.

It was filled with nearly every nationality on earth and filled with blue collar as well as white collar workers.

I forget the death statistics based on nationality but I remember there being dead from all over the world.

Interestingly I think twice as many British people died on 9-11 as died in the recent London attacks.

Martino

07-10-2005, 12:43 PM

But if in fact the killers were muslims motivated by a jihadist ideology then in fact it was MUSLIM or Islamic terrorism. It is ahistorical and dishonest to deny it.

That is a stupid thing to say.

Blowing people up is nothing to do with Islam. Many of the victims were Muslim, and the bombs could potentially have claimed dozens of Muslim lives.

Funny how no one ever called the IRA Christian terrorists ...

Interestingly I think twice as many British people died on 9-11 as died in the recent London attacks.

Interesting because you are a ghoul?

Here is the reaction of the press in the Middle East:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4667023.stm

robotic

07-10-2005, 12:43 PM

grasshopper, perhaps i don't need any evidence to know the truth behind your words, but islam is a religion, not a proprieter of terrorist ideology.

many muslims believe it is the height of Jihad to continue this "World redeeming mission".

wrong, many muslims don't. how many have succumbed to this 'superficial jihad' if not because of political or economical reforms?

Flow to Live

07-10-2005, 12:44 PM

yeah man people still died, and its a wake up call that this can happen anytime again

ahsingjai

07-10-2005, 12:47 PM

TV coverage is what the terrorists want. I think normality is the best way to fight back.

Being ignorant of what is happening is what evil governments want.

haplesshobo

07-10-2005, 12:52 PM

the first i think is unlikely to happen because many people have been saying for a while now that US involvement in the Middle East is motivating people to join terrorist groups.

it's not so much our ideas contaminating their homes. with enough pressure to their own government, they could easily refuse to do commerce with American companies that would bring "our ideas" to their homes.

al Qaida itself was started because the US wouldn't leave the Middle East after Desert Storm. it's the US embargo on Middle Eastern regions and the general American foreign policy in the Middle East - which includes the Israel/Palestine situation - which makes terrorists want to harm us.

radical Islam (or something else) was to be expected as fallout from the violent events and shifts in power in the 20th century. i think what we're seeing today are ripples from that era of massive transition and change. a lot of people were left out, and displaced, and what osma did was to channel that anger at us. no doubt that some people have used our policies as an excuse for their actions, but I do not believe abandoning the ME to fall into the hands of another taliban is the solution either.

in some ways, we've helped to stabalize the ME. you mentioned our support of israel. with our support, we've had a certain amount of control over Israel and moderated its actions. remember, in the first gulf war, when it was attacked by SCUD missles but did not respond. now, imagine if we let them alone and israel is backed into the corner. israel would not take kindly into being wiped out, and would respond with pre-emptive strikes and possible nuclear weapons.

america is a global power, and america's economy today depends on the existance of a global economy. if America were to "pull out" of the middle east, it would be the begining of a chain reaction that would collapse both america's presence in the world (if america were to abandon it's allies, no other country would see a good reason to be allied with america. if america were to give in to terror, its bases all over the world would become targets and would be folded up. if america were so beaten by a group of saveges) and would collapse global trade (there would really not be a global superpower that was commited to global democracy and capitalism who could be trusted to protect shipping and trade, there would be very little confidence by any businesses or individuals in the whole system of international commerce, terror would start to focus on other forms of international commerce).

islamic terrororists will continue to attack america, until such time as they have a large islamic state. getting the US out of saudi arabia will be seen as a huge victory. the long term strategy of the islamists is to inlist huge numbers of supporters by displaying how powerful they are. they will want to continue to hit at the US and other western states with terror. remember two other very important issues - this is a cultural war, and as long as they feel that america's culture is felt in the islamic states, they will have "justification" to attack. this includes countries like thailand and the philapines, that are US allies and have muslim minorities that are involved in rebellions. it includes the gulf states, egypt, north africa and a half dozen states of sub-saharan africa, it includes the "Stans" of central asia and turkey. as long as america has presence in these areas, or is selling american products in these areas, or is broadcasting media to these areas, lslamasists will have "justification" for attacking. eventualy, an islamic fundementalist state will stretch from the philapines to the atlantic, from the maldives and tanzania to the russian border, including the balkans. this is the goal of radical islamicsts, not just to have us pull out of the ME.

nobody wants to be in the situation we're in right now. but, the alternatives are much wose, and so our only response can be to stand firm in the face of terror and evil.

Martino

07-10-2005, 12:57 PM

Being ignorant of what is happening is what evil governments want.

There is a difference between being informed , and ghoulishly staring at a TV hour after hour when there is no important information to be gained.

Grasshopper

07-10-2005, 01:00 PM

That is a stupid thing to say.
It was an accurate thing to say.

Blowing people up is nothing to do with Islam.
I suppose it's a form of your White privilege that you think you can just invent self satisfying lies about history. Killing has always been part of Islam and Arab/Persian/Turkish imperialism no matter how much that truth threatens your tender White PC heart.

Many of the victims were Muslim, and the bombs could potentially have claimed dozens of Muslim lives.
And your point is what? That muslim terrorists only want to kill infidels?? They killed muslims at the US embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. They are killing their fellow muslims all over Iraq. Zarqawi recently issued a edict claiming killing other muslims was NOT un islamic. But that doesn't matter to you because he is only a muslim while you are a knowitall White British homosexual. So no contest there.

Funny how no one ever called the IRA Christian terrorists ...
Funny to you maybe but when have the IRA been motivated by Christian ideology. The IRA are mainly Marxists. The hate is for the British colonial rule. They view the so called "Protestants" as a colonizing arm of the British. They never claim after an attack that they are motivated by christian theology. Muslim terrorists on the other hand are unappologetically carring out violent jihad in the name of islam. Unlike non-muslims like you they don't deny it.

Interesting because you are a ghoul?
:rolleyes: Such endless hysterics from you.

Here is the reaction of the press in the Middle East. Including translations from the Arab language media:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SR3605

ahsingjai

07-10-2005, 01:01 PM

There is a difference between being informed , and ghoulishly staring at a TV hour after hour when there is no important information to be gained.

That's why I prefer news.google.com

Martino

07-10-2005, 01:03 PM

radical Islam (or something else) was to be expected as [SNIP] ... ... islamic terrororists will continue to attack america, until such time as they have a large islamic state [SNIP] ... eventualy, an islamic fundementalist state will stretch from the philapines to the atlantic, from the maldives and tanzania to the russian border, including the balkans. this is the goal of radical islamicsts, not just to have us pull out of the ME.

This is the same person who thinks he might want to be a lawyer.

Don't think you're going to get very far, Hopeless.

robotic

07-10-2005, 01:04 PM

I suppose it's a form of your White privilege that you think you can just invent self satisfying lies about history. Killing has always been part of Islam

grasshopper you are outrightedly offensive on so many levels. ._.! ahhh!

how does the accusation of 'self satisfying lies' connotate with 'white priviledges'? because your accusation that all muslims are radicals or terrorists in some form is a self satisfying lie, right there. :tongue: now, how can i prove that? well tell me, how can you prove that you're not bias.

darn it man, you want to justify your sentences, yet not justifying them at all.

DragonKnight

07-10-2005, 01:31 PM

grasshopper you are outrightedly offensive on so many levels. ._.! ahhh!

how does the accusation of 'self satisfying lies' connotate with 'white priviledges'? because your accusation that all muslims are radicals or terrorists in some form is a self satisfying lie, right there. now, how can i prove that? well tell me, how can you prove that. all i could extract was mumbo jumbo on Quranic texts that instruct the destruction of anything unislamic or non-muslim, which isn't really true.

darn it man, you want to justify your sentences, yet not justifying them at all.
Sistah, speak on! I cannot praise you enough for your mature posts. :smile:

Grasshopper, you are proving to be a hinderance for a progressive and understanding world. What is your purpose here on YW? To rile up and get a rise with your insensitive and ignorant posts? Or to prove time and time again that there are some truly fucked up people in this world who have nothing better to do than to start useless debates and waste people's time so that it becomes more difficult for them to focus on making the world a better and more understanding place.

That's trolling my friend. You have no place here, imho. Go cause trouble somewhere else.

Martino

07-10-2005, 01:35 PM

It was an accurate thing to say.

Nope, it's stupid. Islam isn't attacking us. They, whoever 'they' turn out to be, might call themselves Muslims, but that doesn't mean we are being attacked by Islam.

You've been suckered. If you were around in the 1930's, you'd be hounding Jews because they were the being demonised then as Muslims are now.

I suppose it's a form of your White privilege that you think you can just invent self satisfying lies about history. Killing has always been part of Islam and Arab/Persian/Turkish imperialism no matter how much that truth threatens your tender White PC heart.

Sadly, you've described the history of every culture since records began. Kings and Emperors going to war in the name of their gods. But Muslims are people, not rhetoric.

And your point is what? That muslim terrorists only want to kill infidels?? They killed muslims at the US embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. They are killing their fellow muslims all over Iraq. Zarqawi recently issued a edict claiming killing other muslims was NOT un islamic. But that doesn't matter to you because he is only a muslim while you are a knowitall White British homosexual. So no contest there.

These people kill for their own agenda, not to further some kind of religious truth. They don't care about life, Muslim or otherwise. They do not represent the will of the Muslim people.

Better a knowitall than a half-wit.

Funny to you maybe but when have the IRA been motivated by Christian ideology. The IRA are mainly Marxists.

100% wrong. A record even for you.

The hate is for the British colonial rule. They view the so called "Protestants" as a colonizing arm of the British.

Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Army are Catholic organisations. The IRA assaults and kills Protestants. The IRA blows up Protestants. Ergo the IRA is a Christian terrorist organisation. That's how your simpleton logic re Islamic terrorists works.

They never claim after an attack that they are motivated by christian theology. Muslim terrorists on the other hand are unappologetically carring out violent jihad in the name of islam. Unlike non-muslims like you they don't deny it.

The Nazis claimed to be Socialists. They weren't. North Korea claims to be a Democratic Republic. It isn't. al-Qaeda claims that George Bush is Satan incarnate. Is that true?

yoMAMA

07-10-2005, 01:39 PM

al-Qaeda claims that George Bush is Satan incarnate.

they do have a sense of humor :tongue:

Flow to Live

07-10-2005, 03:48 PM

so if we eliminate george w bush we'll stop the terrorist?....i don't think so.

haplesshobo

07-10-2005, 04:19 PM

As a reminder, as I pointed out earlier, one of London's biggest Muslim areas, around Aldgate, was one of the areas targeted.

The purpose of the bombers, and their ally on this board, is to ruin good relations between the Muslim community and wider British society. Like David Copeland before them, they will fail. And they will feel British justice, not revenge.

Martino,

Your statement has all the intellectual rigor of a pot-fueled 3 am dorm debate.

See, this is the PC crap that I'm talking about that could potentially stifle the investigation and response. Right now, London is in a race against time to catch the murderous thugs before they escape or attack once more. Even though we don't have all the evidence in yet, this attacks bears all the hallmarks of an Al Queda attack. But, rather than acknowlege this and use this circumstanial evidence to help focus the investigation, you'd rather be PC and say it was more likely the attack of a right wing group like National Front.

The police do this all the time in an investigation. They look at who would have the motive, or any past history. So, a wife gets killed. The police are going to focus on the husband who's had past of battering the wife. Same thing here. But, cause it would be somehow culturally insensitive, you want to dilute and divert the attention and focus of the investigation even though it might waste valuable time and energy.

Let's not also forget that Al Queda has a history of also attacking muslim people as well in Iraq, Turkey, etc...

More likely than not, this was an attack by Al Queda and if so, it wasn't to ruin the good relations between the Muslim community and the rest of the British public. No, it was to terrorize and scare the British. The messsage in Spain and if it was AQ responsible for this attack, the message was to say
'this is what happens when you support the US."

The terrorists have reached one of their goals when people start to say that these bombings are a perfectly understandable response to the Iraq war. People do not even have to say whether it was a just or reasonable response. But when people do say that the solution is for Britain, America, everyone fighting to give up and go home, which amounts to the same thing in practical terms. This is to make a causal link between our actions and their terror. Which is to say, we brought this on ourselves. Or "we had it coming" in collaquial American language.

Now, in one sense this might be true. If a street gang tries to extort money from me and I refuse, I probably should expect some form of retaliation. I would be foolish not to expect it and take precautions. But it is wrong to say that my refusal "caused" me to get beaten up. The cause is the criminal activity of the gang. Giving them money encourages further extortion and gradually yields control to the gang, eroding the rule of law and all that depends on it.

The same is true of the international system and terror. And any recommended policy like withdrawing would have the same result. Thus, I believe it is immoral, contemptible and ineffectual all at once.

Martino

07-10-2005, 04:39 PM

Your statement has all the intellectual rigor of a pot-fueled 3 am dorm debate.

Whereas you keep trying to 'debate' with me, but don't seem to score any points at all. Guess the above statement says a lot about your intellectual capacity.

See, this is the PC crap that I'm talking about that could potentially stifle the investigation and response. Right now, London is in a race against time to catch the murderous thugs before they escape or attack once more. Even though we don't have all the evidence in yet, this attacks bears all the hallmarks of an Al Queda attack. But, rather than acknowlege this and use this circumstanial evidence to help focus the investigation, you'd rather be PC and say it was more likely the attack of a right wing group like National Front.

Insulting the ability of the British police force somewhat. Luckily, unlike you, they go through those tedious excercises you'd rather avoid, like collecting evidence, finding proof, identifying the person who actually did the crime. Your solution is round up anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim. Gee, that wont create more terrorists, will it?

The police do this all the time in an investigation. They look at who would have the motive, or any past history. So, a wife gets killed. The police are going to focus on the husband who's had past of battering the wife. Same thing here. But, cause it would be somehow culturally insensitive, you want to dilute and divert the attention and focus of the investigation even though it might waste valuable time and energy.

Please demonstrate how the police are being diverted by me.

Go back over just the last twenty years of Londons history and you will find we've been bombed quite a few times, by the IRA, by fascists, even by animal rights activists. We do know how to go about catching these people, and it doesn't involve listening to morons like you.

Let's not also forget that Al Queda has a history of also attacking muslim people as well in Iraq, Turkey, etc...

Which of course suggests nothing to you.

More likely than not, this was an attack by Al Queda and if so, it wasn't to ruin the good relations between the Muslim community and the rest of the British public. No, it was to terrorize and scare the British. The messsage in Spain and if it was AQ responsible for this attack, the message was to say
'this is what happens when you support the US."

Doesn't seemed to have worked. The only one running around like a headless chicken is you. Round 'em all up, isn't that what you're saying?

The terrorists have reached one of their goals when people start to say that these bombings are a perfectly understandable response to the Iraq war.

That's an example of people enjoying the British way of life - free speech. What, terrorists let off a few bombs and everyone should change their political views of the Iraq War?

The terrorists aren't going to change British foreign policy this way. The Irish couldn't do it, and they've let off a lot more bombs here than anyone else.

And let's actually catch them first before deciding what their goals were, shall we?

People do not even have to say whether it was a just or reasonable response. But when people do say that the solution is for Britain, America, everyone fighting to give up and go home, which amounts to the same thing in practical terms. This is to make a causal link between our actions and their terror. Which is to say, we brought this on ourselves. Or "we had it coming" in collaquial American language.

Dear me, we don't want people deciding what their countries should or shouldn't do, do we? That would be ... oh, what's the word? ... oh yes, democratic.

Now, in one sense [SNIPPED OUT SOME WAFFLE] all at once.

DragonKnight

07-10-2005, 04:45 PM

Whereas you keep trying to 'debate' with me, but don't seem to score any points at all. Guess the above statement says a lot about your intellectual capacity.

GOAL!!! :biggrin:

yoMAMA

07-10-2005, 04:46 PM

See, this is the PC crap that I'm talking about that could potentially stifle the investigation and response.

human rights, dual process and the rule of law are the foundations of western society.

those are merely "PC"?

I don't think so.

the state machine is too powerful for it to function without checks and balances.

Faithless

07-10-2005, 07:36 PM

TV coverage is what the terrorists want. I think normality is the best way to fight back.
The NY Times reported about British coverage:

BBC News, too, played it safe, waiting until 11:34 a.m. to carry a report discussing the possibility that the bombings might be the work of Al Qaeda. Roger Mosey, the head of BBC television news, said the measured tone of the BBC's coverage was intended "to give people a sense of scale."
...
When Prime Minister Tony Blair, at midday on Thursday, announced that the bombings were terrorist acts, the television channels ended their reluctance to use that terminology.

British News Media Reacted to Bombings With a Measure of Caution (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/business/media/11bomb.html)

By ERIC PFANNER * Published: July 11, 2005 * International Herald Tribune

LONDON, July 10 - When attackers struck the London transportation system on Thursday morning, Jeremy Thompson, an anchorman for the Sky News television channel, was in Scotland covering the Group of 8 meeting.

He rushed back to London by car and plane, finally weaving his way through clogged streets from London City Airport on the back of a messenger's motorcycle. By midafternoon he was on the air live from Russell Square, near the site of two of the explosions.

For television journalists, usually the first on the scene when news breaks, the London bombings were a particularly confounding story to cover. Many of the top British news crews were in Singapore, following up on the International Olympic Committee's decision the day before to award the 2012 Games to London. Many of their colleagues in the British and international press were in Gleneagles, Scotland, covering the G-8.

When the bombs went off, the story seemed to unfold in slow motion - a particularly frustrating pace for TV journalists accustomed to documenting breaking news. Reporting was hampered further by initially inaccurate official information, a lack of access to the attack sites underground and the cautious approach of British television news.

In sharp contrast to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, in New York, the bombings in the Underground system occurred out of sight of most Londoners; only the bombing on a bus, nearly an hour later, happened at street level.

As a result, many of the first images of the attacks - and in some cases still the only ones, came from bombing victims and other travelers who were stranded in subway tunnels, using the cameras on mobile phones to create impromptu documentaries that were posted on Web sites or sent to news organizations.

"What we saw here - people walking down the Tube tunnel taking mobile phone pictures - may be a new kind of social phenomenon," said Ben Wood, an analyst at Gartner, the technology consultant. "The media had hardly any access at all."

Thickening the fog around early reporting attempts was an initial announcement by officials of Transport for London, the transit authority here, that the blasts had come from "power surges." The authorities have not explained whether that was simply an error stemming from confusion or an attempt to head off panic.

The bombs in the Underground system went off within seconds of one another at 8:50 a.m., officials now say, not over 26 minutes as initially reported. At 9:15 a.m., the Press Association reported that the emergency services had been called to Liverpool Street Station. A minute later, Sky News ran a similar alert across the bottom of the screen. Sky News, along with its two main British rivals in the continuous-news business, BBC News 24 and ITV News, soon provided reports on the air.

"It wasn't crystal clear initially what was going on," said John Ryley, executive editor of Sky News, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. "Given the Olympic decision, the G-8 and the world we now live in, it was my hunch it was a terrorist attack."

But details of what was going on underground - and later at surface level - were slow to emerge. Talk radio was buzzing with reports of six or seven bombings, with as many as three buses being blown up. Some of the confusion may have occurred because travelers stranded between two Underground stations in some cases were reported as having been evacuated from both stations, prompting erroneous listings of multiple incidents.

On BBC London, a talk-radio station that quickly focused its attention on the bombings while other stations were still playing music, the host, Jon Gaunt, frequently urged callers not to speculate wildly, but to report only what they had seen. A woman who had traveled into London by taxi with her 15-month-old daughter gave an early account of the bus explosion.

BBC News, too, played it safe, waiting until 11:34 a.m. to carry a report discussing the possibility that the bombings might be the work of Al Qaeda. Roger Mosey, the head of BBC television news, said the measured tone of the BBC's coverage was intended "to give people a sense of scale."

"It was a terrible, dreadful event, but it wasn't like 9/11, where you had this sense of all of America under attack," he said. "You want to report fairly what is happening, and the fact is that much of London was functioning normally."

That did not stop Fox News in the United States from broadcasting from central London with a grainy image quality and a reporter dressed in a flak jacket, giving the impression of a war zone.

British tabloid newspapers showed less reserve than their television counterparts, with The Sun, the mass-circulation tabloid daily, reporting still-unsubstantiated rumors on Friday that the bus explosion had been the work of a suicide bomber.

By 10:23 a.m. Thursday, even as the details remained murky, the BBC decided that the story was significant enough to warrant breaking into its regular programming on BBC1, its flagship channel, with full-time news reports. Similarly, ITV News and Sky News coverage was picked up on the main ITV and Sky channels. By midday, Fox, which is also part of the News Corporation, was also picking up Sky News for early morning coverage in the United States.

While the caution of the press here is ascribed by some Americans to British reserve, it is better explained by stricter content regulations than news organizations face in the United States. Broadcasters are required to adhere to guidelines on fairness, balance and privacy rights.

When Prime Minister Tony Blair, at midday on Thursday, announced that the bombings were terrorist acts, the television channels ended their reluctance to use that terminology.

Still, the first confirmation that there had been deaths in the attacks did not come until after 3 p.m. Though some British reporters have complained at news conferences with police officials that the authorities had been slow to share details about the bombings and the investigation into them, officials of ITV, the BBC and Sky said the government had not asked them to withhold any information.

"We felt that editorially, it was necessary to be on the cautious side," an ITV spokeswoman, Saskia Worth, said. "But certainly, we have our independence on these kinds of matters."

bulldog

07-10-2005, 08:27 PM

This is what will happen if you let too many mosque builders come to your christian country. You must become a moslem to marry a moslem. Moslems will never change to another religion. Even after they are living with us they still wear a burkha and a turban towel. Surely if they want to come here they should like the fact that we don't need to cover ourselves like a ninja and eating hams should be halal. If they don't like this they shouldn't be applying to become refugees :smile:

Very safe religion and culture (http://www.crocifissofena.com/islam/3.asp)

DragonKnight

07-10-2005, 08:42 PM

SunWuKong

07-10-2005, 10:22 PM

bulldog, please show some respect to Muslim people. if you want to criticise the religion, that's fine, but tone down the xenophobic rhetoric.

haplesshobo

07-11-2005, 03:57 AM

Whereas you keep trying to 'debate' with me, but don't seem to score any points at all. Guess the above statement says a lot about your intellectual capacity.

And, yet you resort to name calling to argue your points. Guess that says a lot about your intellectual capacity and maturity.

Insulting the ability of the British police force somewhat.

Actually, you're the one insulting the British police and every other expert on terrorism out there who are theorizing that the strikes that were the work of homegrown terrorist cell that's most likely to be associated with Al Queda in some form. But, hey, I guess you must know more than every expert out there when you blame the attacks on a white, right wing hate group entirely unrelated to radical islamism.

Luckily, unlike you, they go through those tedious excercises you'd rather avoid, like collecting evidence, finding proof, identifying the person who actually did the crime. Your solution is round up anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim.

Stop being so hysterical. Of course, the investigators need to do all that. Nor, did I ever suggest we round up or lock everybody who might look Muslim. I'm pointing out that the attacks bear the hallmarks of an Al Queda attack, and that's where the investigators should first focus their efforts even though you find it somehow insensitive.

However much the racial stereotype thing is trotted out, the fact remains that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists tend to be Muslims; can you name any terrorist convicted of a crime connected to Islamic Fundamentalism who wasn't a Muslim? The police would be foolish not to concentrate on that section of the community where the suspects are most likely to come from - to do otherwise would be a waste of resources. Most muslims are not radical islamic fundamentalists seeking to overthrow the west, but it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that you aren't going to find those members in the larger muslim community.

There is a world of difference between investigating a major crime and harrassing one section of the community. If this situation occured in the asian community, I would understand and co-operate, because I wouldn't want these creatures in my midst either. Maybe, you should also lecture my doctor as well when he racially profiles patients as to which diseases are most likely going to affect certain groups.

Gee, that wont create more terrorists, will it?

Oh please, is this the best you can do? Many young white males were stopped during the hunt for Copeland. The police knew they were looking for a young white male because of the evidence they had. So far as I'm aware, none turned to Nazism as a result.

Please demonstrate how the police are being diverted by me.

Um, okay. Notice how you changed my point, when I wrote that you wanted to dilute and divert the forces of the investigators.

This is what you proposed: the attacks were from a right wing white hate group that wanted to start a race war, probably a group like National Front. If so, then that's where the investigators should concentrate their resources on.

Well, let's imagine the investigators only have 72 hours before the next attack. Now, given limited resources, the investigators could focus their resources on the most likely culprits which is standard procedure with most criminal investigations. Or, to soothe any accusations of racial insensitivity, they could spread their resources and look at unlikely suspects, thereby diverting and diluting their efforts. This is what I warned about PC run amok.

Maybe, you wouldn't want the police to have focused on OJ either despite his history of beating up his wife cause as a black athlete that would have been a case of racial profiling....

Go back over just the last twenty years of Londons history and you will find we've been bombed quite a few times, by the IRA, by fascists, even by animal rights activists.

Don't forget the Russian anarchists and proto-Bolsheviks in the late 19th century. And, the basques, the tamil minority in sri lanka, communists in western europe after wwii, moaists in nepal and south america, a few groups in india (usually religious), etc... who all commited terrorism against civilians that the investigators should also look into.

Or, you could look at which group's history of attacks most closely resemble this attack, and start from there. Until those other groups use similar methods, then we're going to focus on AQ first in this type of attack.

We do know how to go about catching these people, and it doesn't involve listening to morons like you.

Geez, why do you always have to resort to name calling?

Who's the moron- the person who points out that this attack bears the hallmark of an AQ attack and thus AQ was most likely behind it or the guy who in the face of all other evidence, insists that this was the work of a white, far right hate group that's trying to divide the multiple ethnic groups of England?

Which of course suggests nothing to you.

And, WTF does this mean?

You use the fact that muslims were also killed as evidence that it was a far right, white hate group that was responsible. I responded by pointing out that islamic fundamentalists have also attacked and killed other muslims in iraq, turkey, etc.. Thus, the fact that muslims were also killed in this attack doesnn't mean that AQ was not involved as AQ has shown a wilingness to kill their fellow muslims before. And, this was your response to that?

Good thing you don't want to be a lawyer either, as it appears you wouldn't get very far either.

Doesn't seemed to have worked. The only one running around like a headless chicken is you. Round 'em all up, isn't that what you're saying?.

And, you're like the ostrich with its head in the sand. This attack has all the hallmarks of an AQ attack, yet you keep insisting that it was most likely some other group.

To answer your sarcastic question, no. I'm saying the investigators should first investigate the most likely suspects.

That's an example of people enjoying the British way of life - free speech. What, terrorists let off a few bombs and everyone should change their political views of the Iraq War?.

No- That the implication that Madrid, London and others deserve what they get is worse than contemptible. It is base. I'm not saying that people don't have a right to speech, but that this type of thinking is wrong. Even if the Iraq war was a mistake, the worst strategic mistake of all time or even if it were the most immoral war in human history, how could that justify bombing commuter trains?

I'm pointing out that the bombers want people to think that way. They need people to think that way. It legitimizes what they do. But more importantly, it legitimizes their overriding claims, which helps weaken resistence to their methods.

The terrorists aren't going to change British foreign policy this way. The Irish couldn't do it, and they've let off a lot more bombs here than anyone else.

Actually, from what I've heard, while Blair might give the the usual "we will not give into terrorists" platitudes he repeatedly does so that the general consensus is that PIRA have been very successful. Tony Bliar's record on Northern Irish terrorism: convicted murderers released from prison, convicted terrorists given jobs in government, and the police and military so bound up with regulations that catching offenders is immensely difficult. Or, to go back further in history, the Irish republic.

For every Winston Churchill, there has also been a Neville Chamberlin.

One of the factors that helped drive Spain out of Iraq was the Madrid train bombings. And, what was the message of the train bombing in Spain?

And let's actually catch them first before deciding what their goals were, shall we?.

Ah, I see. And, yet, you decided who the terrorists and what their goals were as well before they've been caught. So, do as you say and not as you do?

Dear me, we don't want people deciding what their countries should or shouldn't do, do we? That would be ... oh, what's the word? ... oh yes, democratic.

Ah, yes, the scholar who doesn't even know the influence of Roman Republic on the foundations of the American Republic. I guess you didn't the email that we don't live in a democracy, but a republic. Seriously, you're just making up arguments that I never made so that I waste my time answering them. Where did I ever propose that?

But, to answer a question where I never asked- let each country decide its course. Yet, let them be warned of the possible consequences as well so they are not guided soley by craven fear in the face of terrorism.

robotic

07-11-2005, 04:17 AM

However much the racial stereotype thing is trotted out, the fact remains that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists tend to be Muslims; can you name any terrorist convicted of a crime connected to Islamic Fundamentalism who wasn't a Muslim? The police would be foolish not to concentrate on that section of the community where the suspects are most likely to come from - to do otherwise would be a waste of resources. Most muslims are not islamic fundamentalists, but it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that you aren't going to find radical islamistcs to find in the muslim community.

There is a world of difference between investigating a major crime and harrassing one section of the community. If this situation occured in the asian community, I would understand and co-operate, because I wouldn't want these creatures in my midst either.

to a certain degree, you are right.
but think outside of the circle: think of iraq, afghanistan, or where these terrorists come from. aren't these islamic states? haven't they had bombardments in recent years? suppression, illiteracy, and wars is what creates terrorists.

i would go as far to proclaim that it is a coincidence, that suppression and conflict is wide-spread in the muslim world.

by creating a war to stamp out terrorists, you create an ideology that cannot be defied. targetting them spurs their passion for vengeance.

authorities are usually looking at the wrong places - under the assumption that terrorists really hide where they think they will easily get caught. it's not hard to prove because insight into the muslim community and religious prosecution is taking place 24/7. why do bombings like the london blasts still take place?

Martino

07-11-2005, 04:59 AM

And, yet you resort to name calling to argue your points. Guess that says a lot about your intellectual capacity and maturity.

But you are a twit. An uninformed, racist, blinkered half wit.

Actually, you're the one insulting the British police and every other expert on terrorism out there who are theorizing that the strikes that were the work of homegrown terrorist cell that's most likely to be associated with Al Queda in some form. But, hey, I guess you must know more than every expert out there when you blame the attacks on a white, right wing hate group entirely unrelated to radical islamism.

So you don't remember what you write in your own posts? You're the one trying to tell us what the experts should be doing.

The identity of the bombers is still not known. So why do you want police to rule out all avenues of enquiry?

Stop being so hysterical. Of course, the investigators need to do all that. Nor, did I ever suggest we round up or lock everybody who might look Muslim. I'm pointing out that the attacks bear the hallmarks of an Al Queda attack, and that's where the investigators should first focus their efforts even though you find it somehow insensitive.

Really? You didn't say:

If asian males were going to start blowing themselves up, then i'd go on record as saying there's no way to justify the actions and i would understand why i would always get stopped and searched in that type of situation. Not only would it protect rest of society, it would also protect my ass from well from getting blown up by radical asian men.

Sounds to me you're advocating we treat all Muslims, or anyone the police thinks looks like a Muslim, like criminals. Stop them, search them, detain them if in doubt.

One thing that has characterised the British response to this attack is the lack of hysteria.

However much the racial stereotype thing is trotted out, the fact remains that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists tend to be Muslims;

Careful, you might strain your brain.

can you name any terrorist convicted of a crime connected to Islamic Fundamentalism who wasn't a Muslim? The police would be foolish not to concentrate on that section of the community where the suspects are most likely to come from - to do otherwise would be a waste of resources. Most muslims are not islamic fundamentalists, but it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that you aren't going to find radical islamistcs to find in the muslim community.

What percentage of Muslims are terrorists? What percentage of CHRISTIANS are terrorists? You lumping all Mulslims together is madness. Worse, it's textbook Nazi thinking.

There is a world of [SNIP] MORE WAFFLE ...

[QUOTE=haplesshobo]Oh please, is this the best you can do? Many young white males were stopped during the hunt for Copeland. The police knew they were looking for a young white male because of the evidence they had. So far as I'm aware, none turned to Nazism as a result.

Are you mad? Now you are making up anecdotal evidence. The police didn't use stop and search powers to find the Nailbomber. Why would police randomly stop random young men in the street? You're talking about four million men.

Copeland was found through methodical proper police work.

Um, okay. Notice how you changed my point, when I wrote that you wanted to dilute and divert the forces of the investigators.

Yes, and I say again: how can I dilute and divert? You really would make a terrible lawyer.

This is what you proposed: the attacks were from a right wing white hate group that wanted to start a race war, probably a group like National Front. If so, then that's where the investigators should concentrate their resources on.

That would have slowed the investigation somewhat, as he wasn't in the National Front,and the NF wasn't involved. He was a loner. The police caught him through police work, not through your cop TV show tactics.

let's imagine the investigators only have 72 hours before the next attack. Now, given limited resources, the investigators could focus their resources on the most likely culprits which is standard procedure with most criminal investigations. Or, to soothe any accusations of racial insensitivity, they could spread their resources and look at unlikely suspects, thereby diverting and diluting their efforts. This is what I warned about PC run amok.

The police are investigating. How they do it isn't influenced by the media, by me, or by your delusions. They investigate, they gather intelligence, they act. As I said before, to suggest otherwise is belittling the British police.

Maybe, you wouldn't want the police to have focused on OJ either despite his history of beating up his wife cause as a black athlete that would have been a case of racial profiling....

Sigh.

Don't forget the Russian anarchists and proto-Bolsheviks in the late 19th century. And, the basques, the tamil minority in sri lanka, communists in western europe after wwii, moaists in nepal and south america, a few groups in india (usually religious), etc... who all commited terrorism against civilians that the investigators should also look into.

I was pointing out who else have bombed London in the last two decades. To the best of my knowledge, the Tamil Tigers and Russian Bolsheviks aren't on the list. Please pay attention, HopelessLobo.

Who's the moron- the person who points out that this attack bears the hallmark of an AQ attack and thus AQ was most likely behind it or the guy who in the face of all other evidence, insists that this was the work of a white, far right hate group that's trying to divide the multiple ethnic groups of England?

The moron is the one trying to second guess who or what's going on when they don't have any facts. Let the police do their work, don't tell them what the outcome will be, and stop blaming millions of Muslims for the actions of a handful of fanatics.

Seriously, you're just making up arguments that I never made so that I waste my time answering them.

Yes. Please stop posting here, you're wasting your time.

haplesshobo

07-11-2005, 06:06 AM

But you are a twit. An uninformed, racist, blinkered half wit.

Why am I not surprised that you need to resort to name calling and personal attacks?

So you don't remember what you write in your own posts? You're the one trying to tell us what the experts should be doing.The identity of the bombers is still not known.

So you don't remember what you wrote in your own posts where you told us who was responsible and why? So, do as you as say and not as you do?

So why do you want police to rule out all avenues of enquiry?

Um, I've already explained that the police should focus their resources where they're most likely to find the suspects cause to not do so would be a waste of resources.

Sounds to me you're advocating we treat all Muslims, or anyone the police thinks looks like a Muslim, like criminals. Stop them, search them, detain them if in doubt.

I know you'll call me racist for saying this, but if a Muslim person gets on a plane, I don't think its wrong if the security gives him extra attention.

What percentage of Muslims are terrorists? What percentage of CHRISTIANS are terrorists? You lumping all Mulslims together is madness. Worse, it's textbook Nazi thinking.

Not all Muslims are radical islamic fundamentalists who want to kill as many of us as they can. But, all of those radical islamic fanatics are Muslim.

Yes, and I say again: how can I dilute and divert? You really would make a terrible lawyer.

How many times do I have to repeat myself: if the police did what you felt was PC, it would hinder their operation. BUt, how could you? If you called in and made a phone call to give them a misleading tip as in the ones responsible were the NF, and so the police send investigators to look into NF.

That would have slowed the investigation somewhat, as he wasn't in the National Front,and the NF wasn't involved. He was a loner. The police caught him through police work, not through your cop TV show tactics.

i'm not referring to Copeland as linked to NF. i'm talking about the claims that the ones responsible for those terrorist attacks were the NF. like i pointed out above, if the police diverted precious resources on goose chases, that diverts their focus.

The police are investigating. How they do it isn't influenced by the media, by me, or by your delusions. They investigate, they gather intelligence, they act. As I said before, to suggest otherwise is belittling the British police.

Come now, police is affected by the community and the media. When the cameras caught what happened to Rodney King and the community responded, this had an effect on the police and their procedures.

I'd also point out that you are belitting the police in this manner. The police think its a jihadist group responsible. And, when I make the same point, you're calling me a half wit and racist for making similar assumption. And, so how is the police also not racist for making similar assumption?

I was pointing out who else have bombed London in the last two decades. To the best of my knowledge, the Tamil Tigers and Russian Bolsheviks aren't on the list. Please pay attention, HopelessLobo.

Satire on my part. I was pointing out that all the other groups you listed never engaged in a terror act like the one we saw. What happened has all the trademarks of AQ. To continually deny that there might be some connection to AQ just seems hopeless.

The moron is the one trying to second guess who or what's going on when they don't have any facts. Let the police do their work, don't tell them what the outcome will be, and stop blaming millions of Muslims for the actions of a handful of fanatics.

And, yet you're the one who wrote without any facts:

The purpose of the bombers, and their ally on this board, is to ruin good relations between the Muslim community and wider British society.

What ever happened to not second guessing who or what's going on.

SunWuKong

07-11-2005, 07:27 AM

america is a global power, and america's economy today depends on the existance of a global economy. if America were to "pull out" of the middle east, it would be the begining of a chain reaction that would collapse both america's presence in the world (if america were to abandon it's allies, no other country would see a good reason to be allied with america. if america were to give in to terror, its bases all over the world would become targets and would be folded up. if america were so beaten by a group of saveges)

i don't understand why you would think this. the US pulled out of Vietnam and it still maintained a military presence around the world after that. its bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea were established all before the Vietnam War and they're still there today.

and besides, i don't necessarily like US military presence in Asia anyway. it's good for the Japanese and South Korean economies, i suppose - although nowadays i question what good it is doing for the Japanese economy. but in turn it allows the US to arm-twist both Japan and South Korea on their foreign policies.

and would collapse global trade (there would really not be a global superpower that was commited to global democracy and capitalism who could be trusted to protect shipping and trade, there would be very little confidence by any businesses or individuals in the whole system of international commerce, terror would start to focus on other forms of international commerce).

you talk like it would be apocolypse if the US discontinues its pseudo-imperialist agendas. protect shipping and trade? to be honest, i wasn't aware that the US did especially all that much to protect "shipping and trade". is the American Navy escorting shipping cargos all over the world or something?

as long as america has presence in these areas, or is selling american products in these areas, or is broadcasting media to these areas, lslamasists will have "justification" for attacking.

what i've been saying in the last few posts was that without an American military presence, Middle Eastern governments are perfectly capable of stopping American products being sold in the Middle East and stopping the broadcasting of American media to the Middle East region. many Muslims see this as an anti-imperialistic war, where they see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what's happening in Iraq as one and the same. only that terrorists are using the Islamic religion as a motivation and justification to carry out terrorist acts. i mean, Osama bin Laden didn't even like Saddam Hussein, yet somehow the American government insisted that they were linked. Saddam was a secular ruler.

nobody wants to be in the situation we're in right now. but, the alternatives are much wose, and so our only response can be to stand firm in the face of terror and evil.

actually i feel that things would be much better if we were to deal with Middle Eastern countries on equal footing.

Banana

07-11-2005, 08:34 AM

I truly enjoy "tit for tat" posts rather than addressing general arguments.

DragonKnight

07-11-2005, 10:23 AM

[Disclaimer, the following post does not reflect the views of DragonKnight nor any of the better and more wiser members of YW...]

I truly...

You can't handle the truth!!!

...enjoy...

Oh, so you have a problem enjoying things?!

..."tit for tat"...

A what? Tic tat? It seems you don't understand the severity of the situation. That and all these terrorists seem to be Muslim. Allow my narrow-minded racist and anti-Muslim views spread throughout this board like wildfire. BTW, did I mention that this board are still comprised of idiots that do not worship 'The Karate Kid'???? Its the greatest movie and the biggest contributor to Asian American culture and history. Walk into my foot while I do the crane stance!!!

...posts...

British post? Or forum post? Everyone knows that the US is the global power and the USPS will rule the world.

...rather...

I'm getting quite tired at looking into every word you post here, Banana. Stop typing so much!!! :mad:

...than addressing general arguments.

Okay, you made your point. I have ended up becoming a complete jackass by twisting all my arguments and throwing up more smokescreen than the Bush administration. Perhaps I should join Grasshopper in making more sexist comments about 15 yr old female golfers.

--uselessandworthlesshobo

Martino

07-11-2005, 10:30 AM

Why am I not surprised that you need to resort to name calling and personal attacks?

You hardly seem above it yourself.

So you don't remember what you wrote in your own posts where you told us who was responsible and why? So, do as you as say and not as you do?

Did I? Where? I have been saying all along that the police should - and are - investigate with an open mind, not a closed one.

Um, I've already explained that the police should focus their resources where they're most likely to find the suspects cause to not do so would be a waste of resources.

You want them to focus on young Muslim men. You don't explain how randomly stopping Muslims would find the killer. Unless they happen to conduct their day to day lives armed to the teeth.

I know you'll call me racist for saying this, but if a Muslim person gets on a plane, I don't think its wrong if the security gives him extra attention.

Well of course you are a racist. I'm trying to make you see your whole starting point is based on racism.

Not all Muslims are radical islamic fundamentalists who want to kill as many of us as they can. But, all of those radical islamic fanatics are Muslim.

And all elephants are grey, Nellie is an elephant etc. Kindergarten logic.

How many times do I have to repeat myself: if the police did what you felt was PC, it would hinder their operation. BUt, how could you? If you called in and made a phone call to give them a misleading tip as in the ones responsible were the NF, and so the police send investigators to look into NF.

The police aren't constrained by any kind of PC thinking. i'm not being PC. I'm being rational. The police here work based on facts, not by jumping to conclusions.

i'm not referring to Copeland as linked to NF. i'm talking about the claims that the ones responsible for those terrorist attacks were the NF. like i pointed out above, if the police diverted precious resources on goose chases, that diverts their focus.

Yes - wrong claims. If the police concentrated on the NF, Copeland would have had time to let off another bomb. Thank you for conceding the point (even though you don't seem to realise you have).

Come now, police is affected by the community and the media. When the cameras caught what happened to Rodney King and the community responded, this had an effect on the police and their procedures.

WTF is a racist beating in the USA got to do with our Anti-Terrorism Unit? And how does the media influence police work? It's time you came up with some examples.

I'd also point out that you are belitting the police in this manner. The police think its a jihadist group responsible. And, when I make the same point, you're calling me a half wit and racist for making similar assumption. And, so how is the police also not racist for making similar assumption?

Three different jihadist groups have now claimed to be responsible. They can't all be right. The police are investigating. Why can't you grasp that simple idea?

Satire on my part. I was pointing out that all the other groups you listed never engaged in a terror act like the one we saw. What happened has all the trademarks of AQ. To continually deny that there might be some connection to AQ just seems hopeless.

Satire? Yes, 100% wrong satire.

A cursory google search will show you the bombing of trains isn't an Al Qaeda "trademark"

A few examples:

The Tamil Tigers bombed a train July 1996, killing 70 people and wounding 600.

UNITA blew up a train in August 2001, killing 252 Angolans and injuring 165 more.

The Kurdistan Workers Party, which Turkey has been struggling with for 15 years, blew up two trains just this month, with no deaths.

Chechnyan rebels bombed a train in December 2003. And so on.

What ever happened to not second guessing who or what's going on.

That was clear conjuncture on my part, when discussing the fact that the targets of the bombs were Muslim parts of London, and I think I mde it pretty clear it was conjecture. You are talking about certainties.

DragonKnight

07-11-2005, 10:54 AM

Just to add on, the NPA (the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines) has done its share of terrorist acts as well. Oh, and my grandparents and great-grandparents were terrorists too...during WW2 against the Japanese when they occupied the Philippines during their 'liberation' from the United States.

...hey, that sounds familiar. :wink:

bulldog

07-11-2005, 07:38 PM

And once again, not all Muslims are the same. In fact, what you are portraying here are the minority of fanatics. Please post your ignorant bullshit elsewhere. :rolleyes:

What I said is true lol. Are you blind ?
No moslems will marry you unless you convert to islam. They will stay a moslem while at the same time you must become a moslem to marry a moslem. Is this not fanatical enough to you ? Do you see me keep showing people that I am asian by wearing clothings with asian writings everyday ? It is because I respect the norm of the country. Why do you want to live in non moslem country if you can't accept the country's norm.

hooligan

07-11-2005, 07:47 PM

What I said is true lol. Are you blind ?
No moslems will marry you unless you convert to islam. They will stay a moslem while at the same time you must become a moslem to marry a moslem. Is this not fanatical enough to you ? Do you see me keep showing people that I am asian by wearing clothings with asian writings everyday ? It is because I respect the norm of the country. Why do you want to live in non moslem country if you can't accept the country's norm.
You're Korean, this isn't too new to you isn't it?

DragonKnight

07-11-2005, 08:02 PM

Here I go...going to take apart your argument, piece by ignorant piece...

What I said is true lol. Are you blind ?
No, I wear glasses which makes up for my near-sighted condition. Though once in a blue moon I'll wear contact lenses. Other than that, I see quite well thank you very much.

Oh, and the shit you posted are lies.

No moslems will marry you unless you convert to islam. They will stay a moslem while at the same time you must become a moslem to marry a moslem. Is this not fanatical enough to you ?

*Bzzzzz*
Wrong bulldog. My buddy from Iraq is a Muslim. He was willing to marry this one Jewish girl he was dating. Sucks that she turned out to be a psycho. But he wasn't going to force her to convert nor did his parents give a rat's ass.

But hey, I do know that a few Christians fundamentalist groups that will absolutely disown their child if they marry out of their church. And then there's a few that'll drown a woman to see if she's a witch. Problem is if she floats, she's a witch. If she sinks (and dies), she's human.

Welcome to diversity in religion. You should learn it sometime.

Do you see me keep showing people that I am asian by wearing clothings with asian writings everyday ? It is because I respect the norm of the country. Why do you want to live in non moslem country if you can't accept the country's norm.
There are a *ton* of Muslims in this country that wear normal clothes like you and I. In fact, they're the majority. You get to see them on TV, speaking like the normal Americans that they are.

What you are doing is presenting examples based on your own limited experiences with a religion that you rather see in a racist, xenophobic, and biased view. You take the minority worse of a religion and say that this is what all Muslims are like. It's like me seeking out the most fundamentalist and radical Christian group out there and say that these hooded white men I found in the South burning crosses and hanging people of color are the best representatives of Christianity. :rolleyes:

haplesshobo

07-12-2005, 12:03 AM

[Disclaimer, the following post does not reflect the views of DragonKnight nor any of the better and more wiser members of YW...]
A what? Tic tat?

Okay, you made your point. I have ended up becoming complete jackass by twisting all my arguments and throwing up more smokescreen than the Bush administration.
--uselessandworthlesshobo

i get what you were trying to do. it actually showed a flicker of originality beyond when you just chime in to say that you agree or 'goal'. but, the whole mockery of my name kinda just seemed so derivative cause you were just copying what martino does and it just nullified the attempted originality. but, hey, that's okay- i'm not cut out to be a lawyer and you're not cut out to be an artist.

i also find it strange that you decided to single me out for tit tat arguments, when if you look at this thread, it was martino that first did this. why is it acceptable that he does that, but i cannot respond in kind. frankly, i don't like that method either but i'm not going to back down at martino's verbal abuse. its like martino criticizing me for saying who i think is responsible and why, when he did the same thing.

so, i guess its do as you say, and not do as you do?

DragonKnight

07-12-2005, 12:26 AM

^No, its more like why don't you give the fuck up and go about your merry way like a good little boy. From what I've read so far, Martino is slapping you up and down the debate lane. That and you seem like one of them Xenophobic/racist folks I've been hearing about. :wink:

haplesshobo

07-12-2005, 12:49 AM

but, i'm asian, i can't be racist :)

seriously, you really think this attack in london was by National Front, and not by a group that's affiliated with Al Queda?

cause if you do, then yeah, i guess you do agree with martino. he must have laid out some real convincing facts to get you to believe in that. or, maybe, its just human nature to believe what you want to believe and ignore that which you don't want to know.

AngryABCGirl

07-12-2005, 01:47 AM

It's been a pain in the ass going through your endless personal bouts about each other, if you guys have such an issue with each, I think I speak for a lot of people to take it off the board, I'd really prefer to read relevant postings.

SunWuKong

07-12-2005, 07:36 AM

alright guys. cool it. less attacking each other, and more attacking the argument, please.

Grasshopper

07-12-2005, 08:45 AM

"Can't we all just get along". :biggrin:

Banana

07-13-2005, 09:06 AM

This thread has been shit, pissed, and farted on and there was no reason for it.

kitty

07-14-2005, 08:14 AM

alright boys 'n girls, this thread has been split out of the "We've Been Bombed" thread and contains only the rants.

I haven't been following it but it looked pretty ugly as I was splitting it out. Please everyone play nice.

Martino

07-16-2005, 06:36 AM

The British National Party, a racist/nationalist political party, tried and failed to capitalise on the bombings in a local election. One in the eye for anti-Muslims everywehere:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4684995.stm

Meanwhile, British citizens of the Muslim faith held peace vigils outside mosques across the country.

haplesshobo

07-21-2005, 02:28 AM

many Muslims see this as an anti-imperialistic war, where they see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what's happening in Iraq as one and the same. only that terrorists are using the Islamic religion as a motivation and justification to carry out terrorist acts. actually i feel that things would be much better if we were to deal with Middle Eastern countries on equal footing.

That would be an entirely reasonable response to treat them on more equal footing if we were dealing with reasonable people. And, we should still do that if it helps but I doubt it will really appease them. The enemies we are facing are fanatics and entirley unreasonable with their demands. That wouldn't be enough for them, and their propagandists would come up with new reasons to hate us. Remember, Bin Landen once referred in one of his videos to the 'tragedy of Andalusia'- the defeat of muslim forces in spain in 1492. Radical islamism would be willing to look back to history to even the Crusades to justify their attacks.

Let's look back at the 90s when we helped save muslims in bosnia from genocide from serbians even as the UN refused to step in, gave food and aid to muslim somalians, saved kuwait from invasion. Yet, in the 90s, while we did all that, AQ bombed a US barracks, two US embassies, and a US Navy ship while unsuccesfully attempting to bomb the WTC in 93. All that happened before we even went into Iraq to topple Saddam.

And, when the plan to use planes as missles against WTC was launched, as terrorists started to train to be pilots, it was well before the current infitadah with the palestanians started. In fact, peace process was going as well as could be expected. Not that PLO is the same as islamic radicalism since its secular, but I suspect that we'd see the same irrationalism from islamic fundamentalism as Israel did with PLO. Israel negotiated in good faith with PLO, and gave Arrafat the best possible deal he would ever get, and he still rejected it.

Even if we treated them on a more equal footing, they'd then expect us to withdraw our forces from the ME. And, radical islamism isn't just confined to ME, but can found in Europe, Asia, etc.. Once, our enemies realized that we were unwilling to fight back, don't you think this would only encourage them? What if they start using those hot spots as an excuse as well? And, remember, how much more dangerous they would be if the wealth of the Saudi Arabia fell into their hands to fund these attacks.

what i've been saying in the last few Eastern governments are perfectly capable of stopping American products being sold in the Middle East and stopping the broadcasting of American media to the Middle East region.

I'd imagine that such a state would need to be incredibly repressive and backwards to accomplish this. From what I've seen, such states then use US as a convienent scapegoat to divert their citizens from how poor their conditions are.

you talk like it would be apocolypse if the US discontinues its pseudo-imperialist agendas. protect shipping and trade? to be honest, i wasn't aware that the US did especially all that much to protect "shipping and trade". is the American Navy escorting shipping cargos all over the world or something? .

Yes, to a certain extent. This is one of the biggest ways that the US subsidizes world trade. No other navy in the world is capable of projecting the kind of force the US Navy can and few navies are even capable of securing the shipping lines vital to their own economies.

And, let's not forget that that our troops stabilizes and protects the Saudi kingdom. If it were to fall into islamic forces hostile to the west, you'd see dramatic shockwaves to the worldwide economy.

Faithless

07-21-2005, 07:39 AM

robotic

07-21-2005, 08:44 AM

Once, our enemies realized that we were unwilling to fight back, don't you think this would only encourage them? What if they start using those hot spots as an excuse as well?

i think that this is an action being followed by both the terrorists and the west administration: they enter a vicious cycle to sought 'vengeance'. none want to withdraw because it would be admitting defeat. because terrorists not willing to give it a shot, rational, educated governments willing to invest in the well-being and safety (yes, despite how unlikely such a positive outcome will be) of their citizens can - and in the long run, should. it makes sense that if the west resolves all political disputes in the middle east, the terrorists cannot at all entirely justify their actions to their optimum scale (minusing possibility of reasoning like you said, "as far and back as the crusades" popping up), weakening their cause (and it becoming less and less apparent for being a war trying to reach ethnic or religious stability)

haplesshobo

07-22-2005, 01:21 AM

many Muslims see this as an anti-imperialistic war, where they see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what's happening in Iraq as one and the same.

actually i feel that things would be much better if we were to deal with Middle Eastern countries on equal footing.

here's some comments from australlia's prime minister about people suggesting that we got what we deserved because of our invasion of iraq:

"Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor."

Radical Islamism doesn't even need to go back in history to the Crusades to find reasons to hate us. They're willing to even use Australlia sending in peace keepers in East Timor as an excuse. Maybe, somebody can explain to me what Australlia or de Mello did in East Timor was so evil that they brought upon themselves to justify this terror and attacks?

Damn, why can't Bush be as halfway eloquent as this?