London Bombings (Tube warning after 'bang' heard): The political discussion

[Lau]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.

edit: As I'm now the author of this (now the political bits have been moved over) I've PMed a mod to get the title changed to be less confusing. Thanks!

[fitinferno]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.

I was already thinking about the Muslims who are visible Muslims. I feel very bad for them because they are sure to get harassment when something like this happens. Even when they've been upstanding, amazing citizens their whole lives. It's very unfair.

[emw]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.
The US went through the same thing after the 9/11 attacks - it's too bad that we assign blame to anyone with a similar racial profile to the terrorists, but I think it's human nature. We had an instance here (positive) where someone from our company was in NYC on the day of the attacks, and a Muslim taxi driver drove her home. To Chicago. Goes to show that stereotyping is seldom correct.

[geese]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.

Its particularly puzzling as the bombs have struck in muslim populous areas- Edgeware Road (alot of Lebonese there) and Aldgate (Bengalis). As a muslim myself, its horrid and I abhor the hypocracy of those who sympathise with Al-quida et al.

[Sharewaredemon]

The US went through the same thing after the 9/11 attacks - it's too bad that we assign blame to anyone with a similar racial profile to the terrorists, but I think it's human nature. We had an instance here (positive) where someone from our company was in NYC on the day of the attacks, and a Muslim taxi driver drove her home. To Chicago. Goes to show that stereotyping is seldom correct.


Holy crap.

Talk about an act of kindness.

[fitinferno]

Its particularly puzzling as the bombs have struck in muslim populous areas- Edgeware Road (alot of Lebonese there) and Aldgate (Bengalis). As a muslim myself, its horrid and I abhor the hypocracy of those who sympathise with Al-quida et al.

As I said before...most of the Muslims in those areas have always been great, upstanding citizens. I.e., they are probably seen as the enemy as well.

[miloblithe]

I was already thinking about the Muslims who are visible Muslims. I feel very bad for them because they are sure to get harassment when something like this happens. Even when they've been upstanding, amazing citizens their whole lives. It's very unfair.

Also the kind of geniuses who are most likely to harrass Muslims aren't likely to be able to distinguish Muslims from other ethnic or religious groups. I remember reading stories of Sikhs and Hindus being attacked. I'm sure the list goes on.

[geese]

As I said before...most of the Muslims in those areas have always been great, upstanding citizens. I.e., they are probably seen as the enemy as well.

I've seen the likes of Al-maharajoun (extremists) campaigning on Mile End road. I'd ask those ignorant twats what they think of their mates killing their own.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Well, AQ do know how to pick its dates. It's 7/7 today, I don't believe that's a coincidence...

[Otto Rehhagel]

Also the kind of geniuses who are most likely to harrass Muslims aren't likely to be able to distinguish Muslims from other ethnic or religious groups. I remember reading stories of Sikhs and Hindus being attacked. I'm sure the list goes on.


After 9/11, a local Greek shop owner had someone throw bricks through his windows because they thought he was a terrorist. Tall, dark, moustache, must be a terrorist... Idiots.

[dcv]

Well, AQ do know how to pick its dates. It's 7/7 today, I don't believe that's a coincidence...

that occurred to me too. 7 explosions on 7/7.

[Sol]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.

Yes, it sucks that innocent people will suffer for these crimes. London is a multicultural centre. Chances are that some Muslims were hurt in these attacks. It won't matter to those that carry out vigilante retaliations by burning mosques, using abusive language, etc.

[miloblithe]

Well, AQ do know how to pick its dates. It's 7/7 today, I don't believe that's a coincidence...

What's 7/7? Other than a not-very-good mixed drink.

[skunk]

What's 7/7? Other than a not-very-good mixed drink.It's a not-very-late-night convenience store.

[miloblithe]

After 9/11, a local Greek shop owner had someone throw bricks through his windows because they thought he was a terrorist. Tall, dark, moustache, must be a terrorist... Idiots.

Of course, it sucks when any innocent people are attacked. Greek, Muslim or otherwise, but I think that was everyone's point here.

[fitinferno]

that occurred to me too. 7 explosions on 7/7.

I think the number of explosions could have been planned, but I don't think the date is something that was planned other than the leaders who are having the G8 conference. I feel that had the G8 conference not been in the UK today, London would've gotten attacked some other time than now.

I think the terrorists were really trying to shake up the G8 and get attention on themselves instead of on the planned issues.

[hob]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.
In the same way that a tiny minority of muslims feel it is necessary to attack us, i'm sure a tiny minority of britains will feel it necessary to be total idiots and take it out on any muslims they see.

I'm reminded of the vigilante group who attacked a paedeotrician during the early 00's, confusing the term with paedophile...

Similarly yesterday a few idiots in Paris were all-but assaulting the TV team reporting from there - I thought "oh, the French are idiots", but no - just a the couple of dozen that were being idiots are...

[Lau]

Similarly yesterday a few idiots in Paris were all-but assaulting the TV team reporting from there - I thought "oh, the French are idiots", but no - just a the couple of dozen that were being idiots are...

This was on the BBC website, i thought it was nice:

Yesterday, we were annoyed with Londoners and English people. London won the games and Paris lost them. And today we wake up. We realise that these little fights between old friends are for spoilt children. We are all facing a huge challenge. We have all to fight terrorism. We are all Londoners today. We all feel sad and share the pain of the one who are suffering today. Do not worry my friends, we will be with you in this fight and we will win it.
Julien, Paris, France

[Sharewaredemon]

It's a not-very-late-night convenience store.


Hahah that was funny.

Even though 7/11 is 24 hour in most places isn't it?

[skunk]

We should probably all take a moment to reflect on what it must have been like for the residents of Baghdad when the bombing started.

[Jaffa Cake]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm) is awful. It's really good that Muslim leaders are condemning the attacks, but terrible that they have to warn Muslims (particularly women in headscarves) to be aware about vigilante attacks, and that Muslim groups have already received threatening emails.Those behind the attacks are no doubt hoping this will be the case – trying to divide communities and cause fear and mistrust. I think (and hope) that people on the whole are too intelligent to just equate Islam with terrorism, but all you need are a few idiots and you've got a serious problem on your hands.

Cool heads and clear minds are what's needed now.

[Moxiemike]

I'm comforted to know that George Bush has made the world safer by taking out Al Qaeda. Who do we bomb?

totally. somone should lash tony blair and bushie II for each death that's been caused by this whole pathetic "war on terrorism"

[zimv20]

i'm going to say something that i suspect will be a bit controversial.

for those who cannot comprehend why someone would commit a terrorist act, consider that such a lack of understanding of what motivates people is a symptom of the disease that creates govermental/societal/political situations that lead to asymmetrical warfare such as terrorism in the first place.

we'll never be able to stop terrorism if we cannot understand the reasons that people do it.

anyone consider that today in london might be just another day in baghdad?

[Moxiemike]

that occurred to me too. 7 explosions on 7/7.


777. it's kinda the christian response to 666. the number of the lord. sheesh.

So, anyone wanna guess when the US gets their second spanking courtesy of al qaeda? it's BOUND to happen....and soon now i think. sad. sad. sad. we've really opened up a can of worms, haven't we, humans? sick pathetic greedy evil species we are.

[Moxiemike]

i'm going to say something that i suspect will be a bit controversial.

for those who cannot comprehend why someone would commit a terrorist act, consider that such a lack of understanding of what motivates people is a symptom of the disease that creates govermental/societal/political situations that lead to asymmetrical warfare such as terrorism in the first place.

we'll never be able to stop terrorism if we cannot understand the reasons that people do it.

anyone consider that today in london might be just another day in baghdad?

true. my favorite "post-911" quote is "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"

[swindmill]

i'm going to say something that i suspect will be a bit controversial.

for those who cannot comprehend why someone would commit a terrorist act, consider that such a lack of understanding of what motivates people is a symptom of the disease that creates govermental/societal/political situations that lead to asymmetrical warfare such as terrorism in the first place.

we'll never be able to stop terrorism if we cannot understand the reasons that people do it.

anyone consider that today in london might be just another day in baghdad?

Controversial or not, it's true. The 'War on Terrorism' has only made terrorists more determined to fight.

[Moxiemike]

Hearing the news this morning made 9/11 feel like it was yesterday. How can people do these things? And in the name of a god no less. Sickening.

My sympathies go out to the victims and their families. Please know that our thoughts are with you here in America. :(

Again though, the US bombed and then occupied iraq in the name of god. and the brits were on our side. it's only logical that they were next.

brilliant leaders we have. blah

[obeygiant]

Again though, the US bombed and then occupied iraq in the name of god. and the brits were on our side. it's only logical that they were next.

brilliant leaders we have. blah

the U.S. DID NOT invade Iraq in the name of God.

[Moxiemike]

the U.S. DID NOT invade Iraq in the name of God.

oh come on. we invoke "gods name" all over everything. including speeches about the war. the US is just as bad as al qaeda. accept it

[obeygiant]

i'm going to say something that i suspect will be a bit controversial.

for those who cannot comprehend why someone would commit a terrorist act, consider that such a lack of understanding of what motivates people is a symptom of the disease that creates govermental/societal/political situations that lead to asymmetrical warfare such as terrorism in the first place.

we'll never be able to stop terrorism if we cannot understand the reasons that people do it.

anyone consider that today in london might be just another day in baghdad?

maybe you could enlighten us as to what the motives of the terrorist are.
because truthfully blowing up civilians and your own people is a little difficult to understand.

[OnceUGoMac]

We should probably all take a moment to reflect on what it must have been like for the residents of Baghdad when the bombing started.

Apples and Oranges, my friend. :rolleyes:

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

true. my favorite "post-911" quote is "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"That quote is much older than 9/11...

[obeygiant]

oh come on. we invoke "gods name" all over everything. including speeches about the war. the US is just as bad as al qaeda. accept it

no. The the United States is not the same or as bad as Al Qaeda.

[Moxiemike]

Apples and Oranges, my friend. :rolleyes:

true. those damn towel heads deserve to die, right? ;)

death is NEVER apples and oranges. massacres are massacres whether it's because of US greed or Al Qaeda greed.

[robbieduncan]

Worse actually. I thin the death toll of iraqis is higher than 9-11.

This is getting a bit heated. Care to take this to a side-discussion in the Political forums. Whilst this may well be on-topic it's not really suited to discussion in this forum.

[obeygiant]

Worse actually. I think the death toll of iraqis is higher than 9-11. ;)

death by whos hand? The insurgents over there are blowing up Iraqis pretty fast.

[Bakey]

Again though, the US bombed and then occupied iraq in the name of god. and the brits were on our side. it's only logical that they were next.

brilliant leaders we have. blah

Yes, that's right. We were next after both Bali and Madrid had the s*** bombed out of them!!

We're not the only ones to feel the blacklash from supporting the Bush invasion!!!!

[Moxiemike]

This is getting a bit heated. Care to take this to a side-discussion in the Political forums. Whilst this may well be on-topic it's not really suited to discussion in this forum.

i could care less, but it's all directly related man.

a few "humans" have opened a can of worms, and the price is the deaths of 1000's of innocents. Pretty sad state of affairs.

[Moxiemike]

Yes, that's right. We were next after both Bali and Madrid had the s*** bombed out of them!!

We're not the only ones to feel the blacklash from supporting the Bush invasion!!!!

but regardless, it's sad that we've come to this, is it not?

can you believe that many americans voted for bush?

it's insanity.

[obeygiant]

This is getting a bit heated. Care to take this to a side-discussion in the Political forums. Whilst this may well be on-topic it's not really suited to discussion in this forum.


okay, i'll stop. its useless anyway.

[OnceUGoMac]

Again though, the US bombed and then occupied iraq in the name of god. and the brits were on our side. it's only logical that they were next.

brilliant leaders we have. blah

Sorry, bud, but I must disagree. The. U.S. did not invde Iraq in the name of God. I'm not sure which propagandist paper you got that from, but it's comical.

[Moxiemike]

That quote is much older than 9/11...


eh. meant to mean that it's something i've used alot when talking about the world post-911

my bad

[skunk]

This is getting a bit heated. Care to take this to a side-discussion in the Political forums. Whilst this may well be on-topic it's not really suited to discussion in this forum.Probably my fault, but we really must keep a sense of perspective here.

[OnceUGoMac]

true. those damn towel heads deserve to die, right? ;)

death is NEVER apples and oranges. massacres are massacres whether it's because of US greed or Al Qaeda greed.

So, this is how you want to mark this debate, by calling me a racist. So be it. You showed me. :rolleyes:

[Juventuz]

i could care less, but it's all directly related man.

a few "humans" have opened a can of worms, and the price is the deaths of 1000's of innocents. Pretty sad state of affairs.

Your can of worms was opened long before Bush came into office. AQ was around long before Bush. Blaming this on the invasion of Iraq is ridiculous. The group the has supposedly taken responsability for this included Afghanistan as a reason. You can be assured that even if we didn't invade Iraq they would have used a different excuse in their "reasoning".

RIP to those that died today.

[robbieduncan]

Probably my fault, but we really must keep a sense of perspective here.

To those who have responded to my post re:Political Forums I just want to point out I'm not a Moderator, I jut think that with the way things were going the Mods might well step in soon!

[OnceUGoMac]

Your can of worms was opened long before Bush came into office. AQ was around long before Bush. Blaming this on the invasion of Iraq is ridiculous. The group the has supposedly taken responsability for this included Afghanistan as a reason. You can be assured that even if we didn't invade Iraq they would have used a different excuse in their "reasoning".

RIP to those that died today.

Well said. Oh, but Moxie's gonna call you a racist now. Get ready for it.

[feakbeak]

We should probably all take a moment to reflect on what it must have been like for the residents of Baghdad when the bombing started.Apples and Oranges, my friend. :rolleyes:
They are different situations but not completely different - innocent civilians are dying in both instances and that is truly unfortunate. This thread is getting too political and religious, IMO. Perhaps a new thread should be started in the Political forum to discuss this matter.

Today's events are tragic - as are all acts of terrorism or warfare that cause innocent civilians to be harmed and/or killed. Today, September 11th, last year in Madrid the terrorism in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, etc. I'm sure there are many more instances that I don't even know about off the top of my head because they don't get the same media attention.

Lets try to keep this thread free of conflict in respect of those who have been injured and killed today in this senseless act and in memory of innocent people who have been killed or had their lives destroyed by terrorism and acts of warfare. Regardless of the cause and/or political/religious motives that fuel these acts it is just sad that innocent people have to suffer.

My thoughts go out to those in London today.

[Lau]

This is getting a bit heated. Care to take this to a side-discussion in the Political forums. Whilst this may well be on-topic it's not really suited to discussion in this forum.

Please, yes. Let's keep this in this section as what it is - a current event - that people who haven't got 100 posts may well want to post in, especially if they have been affected by the attacks. Please start another thread in the political forum.

[obeygiant]

what exactly do you think the terrorists were trying to accomplish today?
Is it just because Britan was involved with the war on terror?
The terrorists seem to want us all dead for more reasons than just that.

[mgargan1]

please delete my post, cause it was too political

[zimv20]

To those who have responded to my post re:Political Forums I just want to point out I'm not a Moderator, I jut think that with the way things were going the Mods might well step in soon!
actually, i started one hours ago in the poli/war forum, but it was locked and i was directed here. this is bound to end up down there anyway.

[feakbeak]

actually, i started one hours ago in the poli/war forum, but it was locked and i was directed here. this is bound to end up down there anyway.I honestly hope it does not. This thread would be well served to remain a source for news, updates, sympathies and condolences and not to try to determine the motives of the terrorists and/or have heated debate over the political/relgious motives and ramifcations of today's events.

[skunk]

actually, i started one hours ago in the poli/war forum, but it was locked and i was directed here. this is bound to end up down there anyway.My thoughts exactly. Of course, we could always start a parallel thread up again. This "don't mention the war" stuff is not going to be easy...

[Lau]

what are we supposed to talk about? Politics is what this is all about isnt it?

Yes, maybe, but I (and many other Londoners, and people in the UK I expect) have found it useful to discuss what has been happening today and to share the news we have seen unfold.

It is a political situation, but it was obviously getting heated above, and it isn't helpful to get this thread locked or shut off to members who can't post when it ends up in the Political forum. There's no reason why you can't start another thread in the Political forum to discuss this.

[zimv20]

My thoughts exactly. Of course, we could always start a parallel thread up again. This "don't mention the war" stuff is not going to be easy...
"i mentioned it once but i think i got away with it"

[Peterkro]

Mwhaaahaha :)

[asif786]

what are we supposed to talk about? Politics is what this is all about isnt it?

no, the thread was created so that both londoners and others could track what was going on and watch events unfold. and the thread was going fine..in fact i think this is a great example of how macrumors members can come together.

it's only in the last few pages that it's turned into a political free-for-all.

[iMeowbot]

what exactly do you think the terrorists were trying to accomplish today?
Has it even been confirmed yet that the Web site claiming responsibility is genuine? A little while ago at the London press conference, the city representatives were treating it as iffy.

[hob]

I think there's a difference between mentioning the politics and "getting political". Personally I abhor what has happened tonight. I woke up this morning at 10am with my mate telling me he didn't think we'd get to see Queens of the Stone Age tonight, followed by me turning to BBC News 24... I didn't move from my bed for about 5 hours. I was totally frozen to the spot.

It would be useful to have another thread so we can discuss the politics of the situation, because personally I have some very strong views which aren't really appropriate for this thread.

Hob

[broken_keyboard]

Must. Get. Revenge.

[WinterMute]

This is the political forum, fill your boots.

Sorry if any non political points got moved with the split.

[wordmunger]

A wise move, Wintermute. My biggest concern with all this politically is that Britain will decide to escalate the "war on terror." OTOH, they've been dealing with all this longer than America, so perhaps cooler heads will prevail.

[mactastic]

Has anyone stepped up saying they think the people who did this should be offered therapy yet?

[skunk]

What kind of therapy would you suggest?

[stubeeef]

Well, feel free to correct me here, but these are the choices "I" see going forward.

A) Tell the terrorist that we are all sorry and leave Iraq and Afganistan immediately so they can move forward to help their people

B) Turn the place to glass

C) Increase our presence (with or without a colalition) and keep marching forward.

D) ?????(not smart enough to have a D.

Instead of repeated silly debate how about supposed solutions. Because that is the real problem, how to make this stop. Are the demands of Al Q definable, or reasonable.

[mactastic]

The kind that Karl Rove (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8324598/) suggest liberals want to give to terrorists.

[clayj]

What kind of therapy would you suggest?I'd suggest a therapy that involves intracranial injections of steel-jacketed lead.

For those of you who think that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will get the nasty ol' terrorists to stop, I have two words for you: Neville Chamberlain. Appeasement didn't work in 1933, and it won't work now. These people want to KILL EVERYONE IN THE WEST. They cannot be bargained with, they cannot be reasoned with. (Apologies to James Cameron.) It's them or us, and I vote for us. They're intent on being with Allah in Paradise... fine, we can arrange that.

It's time for Bush and Blair to get on the phone to King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and present him with an ultimatum: Police your people and root out the terrorists. If just one more incident like 9/11 New York or 7/7 London occurs, Saudi Arabia will very quickly become a joint US/UK protectorate and the evildoers will have to face us on THEIR turf.

[wordmunger]

Well, feel free to correct me here, but these are the choices "I" see going forward.

A) Tell the terrorist that we are all sorry and leave Iraq and Afganistan immediately so they can move forward to help their people

B) Turn the place to glass

C) Increase our presence (with or without a colalition) and keep marching forward.

D) ?????(not smart enough to have a D.

Instead of repeated silly debate how about supposed solutions. Because that is the real problem, how to make this stop. Are the demands of Al Q definable, or reasonable.

If that's all you can think of, I'm glad you're not in charge.

And no, I don't have any better ideas. Though I do think targeting actual terrorists would be a good start.

[chibianh]

We’ve made too may compromises already. Too many retreats.

They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back.

Not again.

The line must be drawn here!

This far! No farther!

A quote from a movie which came up in my mind as I read about these events today on the news.

Maybe we should compromise... maybe we should retreat and fall back... maybe these terrorists will stop going after us...

Seriously, i really doubt they will stop. Even if we were to end this war on terror right now, remove our troops from iraq and the rest of the middle east, and maybe even become isolationists again, I highly doubt these extremists will stop going after us. So what do we do? Sit back and just let them hit is here and there? Or do we step up our efforts and try to win this war?

[stubeeef]

If that's all you can think of, I'm glad you're not in charge.

And no, I don't have any better ideas. Though I do think targeting actual terrorists would be a good start.

Sounds like it is good your not incharge either! :)

[dejo]

777. it's kinda the christian response to 666. the number of the lord. sheesh.

You mean the radical Islamic response to the Christian 666? Which is the number of the "beast" not the lord. Plus, scholars are now saying there was a mistake and the number is in fact 616. And, of course, there were only 4 explosions.

[zimv20]

1. wean ourselves from foreign oil
2. stop propping up corrupt regimes
3. support food, eduction, family planning and disease aid to the third world (free of idealogy, please)
4. increase student exchange programs

then probably something about lowering tariffs to stop protecting first-world agriculture industries so much, but i don't know all the ins and outs of that one.

there will always be people who want to attack the US and UK, but the trick is to stop the ready supply of people who want to support and/or join them.

[stubeeef]

You mean the radical Islamic response to the Christian 666? Which is the number of the "beast" not the lord. Plus, scholars are now saying there was a mistake and the number is in fact 616. And, of course, there were only 4 explosions.

Way to ruin a perfectly good wacked out theory.

[skunk]

Well, feel free to correct me here, but these are the choices "I" see going forward.

A) Tell the terrorist that we are all sorry and leave Iraq and Afganistan immediately so they can move forward to help their peopleTell the families of the innocent victims. That would only be possible with a new US President. It may, however, be the only solution. There may be no face-saving option.

B) Turn the place to glassUm, no.

C) Increase our presence (with or without a colalition) and keep marching forward.You can't afford it.

D) ?????(not smart enough to have a D.Don't feel bad: Bush wasn't smart enough to have a B.

Instead of repeated silly debate how about supposed solutions. Because that is the real problem, how to make this stop. Are the demands of Al Q definable, or reasonable.What are their demands? Or is it just revenge now, for the destruction wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[wordmunger]

Sounds like it is good your not incharge either! :)

Oh, yes. If I was in charge I'd be thinking now was a good time for a nice vacation.....

[Nickygoat]

Are the demands of Al Q definable, or reasonable.
Not really on either count. Bin Laden's original demands were for the removal of infidel (read: American) presence in "The Land of the Two Holy Places" ie. Saudi Arabia, and the creation of an Islamic Caliphate. Neither of which are particularly realistic, especially the Caliphate bit. Bin Laden's spiritual adviser is Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who in turn is a follower of (now dead) Said Qutb, an Egyptian who had become disillusioned with the decadence of the West and it's influence on Egypt - he thought that Egyptians and other Muslims were losing their faith and becoming Westernised. He saw it as his mission to bring the Umma (the Muslim brotherhood for want of a better description) back to the fold. When reasoned argument didn't work they began to turn to violence, the logic being that if people didn't want to follow his path then they would be forced to. Bin Laden is a Wahhabi muslim - a particularly extreme version of Sunni Islam, and the state religion in Saudi Arabia. Qutb's vision is his and there is no deviation from it for him. Al Qaeda are not the sort of people to negotiate. It's basically "you're either with us or you're not. If you're not then you're an apostate - a terrible crime for Muslims - and must die". His goal is the elimination of unbelievers, whether Muslim or not, and to form a global Islamic Republic, with him as leader.
More info on Qutb here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutb)

[broken_keyboard]

Instead of repeated silly debate how about supposed solutions. Because that is the real problem, how to make this stop. Are the demands of Al Q definable, or reasonable.

I don't think it's possible for us to negotiate with these people. Negotiation is when you have an agreement on basic principle, and you sit down to nut out the details. But these guys are different right down to the core.

[skunk]

Al Qaeda are not the sort of people to negotiate. It's basically "you're either with us or you're not. If you're not then you're an apostate - a terrible crime for Muslims - and must die". His goal is the elimination of unbelievers, whether Muslim or not, and to form a global Islamic Republic, with him as leader. That mindset sounds terribly familiar...

[chibianh]

That mindset sounds terribly familiar...

familiar, but not quite the same ;)

[stubeeef]

So, to summize, we are dealing with a group of people who want the entire world their way or they will kill you?

[swindmill]

For those of you who think that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will get the nasty ol' terrorists to stop . . .

No one has ever said that. You are linking several ideas to make one statement, which makes no sense.

[zimv20]

wouldn't it be wonderfully ironic if AQ contributed to the increase of christianity and its political influence in the US?

[broken_keyboard]

I'm usually very impressed by Tony Blair, however I can't say his response was very good. He seemed confused and lost for words. Hopefully he will give a better speech later today.

[skunk]

familiar, but not quite the same ;)Only the names, only the names...

[Peterkro]

uh oh backlash has started,more armed police on streets, ID cards gain new support,everone to be barcoded etc. :(

[Nickygoat]

That mindset sounds terribly familiar...
Doesn't it just? Did you see a series of films by Nick Curtis last year called The Power of Nightmares? Absolutely fascinating - explores the parallels between Al Qaeda and the neo-cons. They basically come out as two sides of the same coin. PM me if you want a copy

[feakbeak]

I'm glad we have a thread for this in the political subforum, thanks WinterMute.

As for the solutions to help decrease/stop terrorists acts, specifically those inflicted by Muslim extremist groups I am not expert and do not have answers but here are a few factors that I think need to be considered and included in the solution. The solutions proposed by stubeeef seem to be rather simplistic and the most extreme courses of actions.

1. Stop arming Israel and backing them so strongly. We need to show fair and unbiased support for an independent state for Palestine as well. This causes a great amount of resentment towards the US and western culture within the Middle East (ME).

2. Many seem to think that everyone in the ME hates the US and western culture but that is not the case. I too fear that our actions in Iraq are fueling membership to groups like Al-Queda but there are still supporters of democracy and western culture within the ME. For example, the youth, particularly educated youth of Iran have been protesting their government and a large majority of them are pro-democracy and open-minded towards western culture. We need to peacefully support these types of internal movements within the ME to bring about change - I personally do not believe democracy can be forced onto a country/society - there must be desire for it and strong leadership within that culture willing to carry the movement.

3. If the US hopes to be seen as a sincere diplomat trying to bring democracy to the ME we cannot push our own self-interests in the region. We must be very careful in how we proceed. Here are some of my suggestions:

A. Decrease dependence on foreign oil.
B. Do not setup and maintain permanent military bases in Iraq and the region in general.
C. We must be consistent in our reasoning for our actions in the region - we first stated went to war in Iraq due to the imminent thread of WMDs and links to Al-Queda (9/11). When that turned up false we started pushing the "spreading freedom and democracy" line. However, Bush still brings up terrorism and 9/11 when talking about the war in Iraq, which is complete bull******, IMO. This may fool Americans but most of the world, particularly in the ME can see right through this propoganda.

4. In order to minimize terrorism (we'll never be free of it) we can't just go and blow-up/occupy countries that we believe are related. We have to destroy their support system, infrastructure and financing and most importatly support from the societies/cultures where they attempt to gain recruits. I believe the attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan were justified and necessary (unlike Iraq). Although I tend to be a pacifist, even I realize that this will require military operations in some cases but that should always be a last resort because military action will always result in the loss of innocent life and severe damage to a culture/society.

There are many other actions that need to be pursued that are much more subtle. We need to stop playing friends with regimes that we know to support terrorist-related groups that hold anti-western sentiments, chiefly Saudi Arabia. We seem to do this when it suits our needs and shy away from it when it doesn't. Just like we supported Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and armed Iraq to fight Iran. We helped Iraq obtain the gas used to gas the Kurds... then we used it as an excuse to invade their country.

We cannot have any credibility in the region unless we start to clearly define our intentions on foreign policy, act fairly and be respectful towards all parties involved and most importantly maintain consistency in our words and actions - yes, even between administrations. There is much more at stake here than our own protection and certainly a lot more than some election results - eh, I'm getting nauseous.

*steps down off soapbox* - Sorry for the lengthy post.

[Lyle]

1. wean ourselves from foreign oil
2. stop propping up corrupt regimes
3. support food, eduction, family planning and disease aid to the third world (free of idealogy, please)
4. increase student exchange programs

then probably something about lowering tariffs to stop protecting first-world agriculture industries so much, but i don't know all the ins and outs of that one.

there will always be people who want to attack the US and UK, but the trick is to stop the ready supply of people who want to support and/or join them.First, let me say: Thanks for making one of the few thoughtful posts in this thread. I agree that these suggestions of yours these are (probably) at least part of the long-term solution to the problem. The challenge that no one seems to have the answer to is, what do we do in the near term, while we're waiting for the current generation of Muslim extremists to die out? What would be the best response from England to today's events?

[skunk]

Doesn't it just? Did you see a series of films by Nick Curtis last year called The Power of Nightmares? Absolutely fascinating - explores the parallels between Al Qaeda and the neo-cons. They basically come out as two sides of the same coin. PM me if you want a copyYes, that was very informative. Watching the NeoCons and Al Qaeda is like watching one of those Ray Harryhausen films, with the two rather unrealistic dinosaurs endlessly stumbling about and knocking things over as they try to knock each other out. Who wrote this crappy script, anyway?

[zimv20]

First, let me say: Thanks for making one of the few thoughtful posts in this thread.
thanks for saying so.

what do we do in the near term, while we're waiting for the current generation of Muslim extremists to die out? What would be the best response from England to today's events?
i think one of the problems, at least in bush's iraq adventure, is short-term overreaction. so we've got to start thinking in those terms and recognize that the long term solutions are largely non-military.

the short term reaction today should be a criminal investigation into the act(s). the longer term must work on decreasing the factors that create terrorism, both directly (membership and funding networks) and indirectly (the steps i listed above).

i'll highlight again that most of the solutions are non-military. it is in this regard that my ideas are at cross-purposes w/ bush's and apparently the rest of the neocons.

[skunk]

First, let me say: Thanks for making one of the few thoughtful posts in this thread. I agree that these suggestions of yours these are (probably) at least part of the long-term solution to the problem. The challenge that no one seems to have the answer to is, what do we do in the near term, while we're waiting for the current generation of Muslim extremists to die out?Surely the most important thing is to stop creating new ones. Your government dragged us all into this, now you want a solution? There isn't one. Not a military one at any rate. You could start by sacking your Commander in Chief.

What would be the best response from England to today's events?Business as usual. Who can we bomb?

[Nickygoat]

So, to summize, we are dealing with a group of people who want the entire world their way or they will kill you?
Yeah pretty much. How to deal with it is the argument. You basically have two choices:
1) You go after them with everything you have. War On Terror, Shock And Awe etc etc. Wiping out terrorists is pretty attractive, and shows the rest of the world that you mean business (talk softly and carry a big stick) but it's current implementation is badly flawed. Generally, innocent people will not be that bothered about the "removal" of bad elements (think of where you live - are you that bothered if the police arrest gang members or give them a bit of a kicking, however immoral that might be) but US policy is to shoot first and ask questions later. With obvious consequences.
2) You try and improve the conditions of the local population. Al Qaeda and its ilk are minorities. Very vocal and all the attention is focused upon them but they do not represent the views of the average person. If you can improve the living standards, education, income and quality of life for the people then Al Qaeda's support disappears. This means real democracy, which is generally unacceptable for the people in power in the countries we're talking about - simply because the people in power know that they would be ejected very quickly. Tribalism is still rife in some parts of the world and is the hardest thing to overcome.
Neither solution is easy nor perfect. What would you choose?

[feakbeak]

Surely the most important thing is to stop creating new ones. Your government dragged us all into this, now you want a solution? There isn't one. Not a military one at any rate.While I completely agree the US has screwed up a great deal in the Middle East, we didn't drag you into this situation. Your elected leadership choose to be our ally on this matter. You're a strong, independent nation. France and Germany told us what they thought about it - and so we have "Freedom Fries". :) Although I can understand that you, as a British citizen, might feel dragged into this mess. As an American citizen who disagrees with our actions in Iraq, I feel the same way.

[skunk]

While I completely agree the US has screwed up a great deal in the Middle East, we didn't drag you into this situation. Your elected leadership choose to be our ally on this matter. You're a strong, independent nation. France and Germany told us what they thought about it - and so we have "Freedom Fries". :) Although I can understand that you, as a British citizen, might feel dragged into this mess. As an American citizen who disagrees with our actions in Iraq, I feel the same way.It's true, of course. Blair and Bush are thick as thieves.

[Peterkro]

It's true, of course. Blair and Bush are thick as thieves.
Blair and Bush are thieves.

[broken_keyboard]

1. Stop arming Israel and backing them so strongly. We need to show fair and unbiased support for an independent state for Palestine as well. This causes a great amount of resentment towards the US and western culture within the Middle East (ME).


I disagree here. When deciding which foreign regimes to support, the U.S. should support those governments who give their citizens the most freedom.

Israel is not perfect, but compared to the countries around it, it is a bastion of freedom.

[stubeeef]

Neither solution is easy nor perfect. What would you choose?

As previously mentioned, accurately, the choices I quickly threw out were simplistic. First the strategy, big picture, then the tactics, small bit by bit picture.

Strategically, we need to not depend on that region for anything, it is were they derive some power. The ability to deny is a strong ability. (deny flow of oil in this case) Once that is done, the only power left over us is fear.
How do you fight fear? I don' t know.
It would be nice if the previous recipients of Al Quedas style of government, would liason with other Arab Countries and attempt to give the 411 to their brothers about how looney and horrible they are.
Promote democracy, which I believe has a germinating seed, lets hope no one eats the sprout.
Throw aid to them in buckets. The hard part here is making sure the aid doesn't aid your enenmy. There will always be some, but keeping it to a minimum is essential. It will take a local initiative to work.

Tactically
Occupy as much as possible, educate/train the police, military, first responders as much as possible.
When you want to hit a target, HIT HARD.
Both Strategically and Tactically, you must convince the Arabs it is in their best interest.

I am sure I left a thousand holes, but hey, I don't have any REAL answers.

[feakbeak]

I disagree here. When deciding which foreign regimes to support, the U.S. should support those governments who give their citizens the most freedom.

Israel is not perfect, but compared to the countries around it, it is a bastion of freedom.I agree they treat their citizens well, but at the same time they are denying freedoms to citizens of neighboring states. This behavior should be heavily criticized by the US - but it is not.

[broken_keyboard]

I agree they treat their citizens well, but at the same time they are denying freedoms to citizens of neighboring states. This behavior should be heavily criticized by the US - but it is not.

Well... the fact remains, they are way better than their neighbors.

[clayj]

I agree they treat their citizens well, but at the same time they are denying freedoms to citizens of neighboring states. This behavior should be heavily criticized by the US - but it is not.Hang on. How can Israel deny freedom to citizens of "neighboring states"? That's like saying that Canada can deny freedom to Americans.

The fact is that Israel's neighbors have acted in a deplorable fashion when it comes to the Palestinians. Rather than do the right thing and offer to resettle them in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. and allow them to become citizens of those countries, they've hung the Palestinians out to dry by forcing them to remain in Israeli-occupied territory as stateless refugees. There are plenty of Israelis who are Arabs, and who get along just fine with Israelis as a whole. But the Palestinians have historically called for the Jewish Israelis to be pushed into the sea, so that they can have "their country" (which never was a country, and which was last administered by the British). What do you expect the Israelis to do?

[mactastic]

Blair and Bush are thieves.

Please provide some form of basis for this claim. Or put an 'I think...' in front of your statement to qualify it.

This is the kind of thing that sets political discussion off on the wrong tone. How long will it take for some indignant righty to post an equally inflammatory (and equally unsourced) response?

[IJ Reilly]

US policy towards Israel is very much an artifact of the Cold War, and hasn't changed as much in the post-Soviet Union environment as it should have. Consequently the US is not viewed as fair and honest brokers of peace in the Middle East. Case in point: when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 2001, Bush sternly warned Sharon that this wasn't acceptable and that the occupation should end. Sharon simply thumbed his nose at this warning, and Bush said nothing else about it. The implications might be lost on most Americans, but I doubt many Middle Easterners missed the meaning. And this was before the US invaded and occupied two Muslim nations.

[zimv20]

how odd that this thread suddenly turned to the israel/palestine situation, while just this morning, before the london attacks, bush suddenly turned from climate change to the israel/palestine situation (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=136463).

something on his mind, i guess.

[feakbeak]

Well... the fact remains, they are way better than their neighbors.That is probably true but these types of conflicts cannot be resolved diplomatically by a third party (United States) if we simply take one side of the argument and fail to criticize the shortcomings of Israel - and remain firm and consistent about it. Consistency in our foreign policy was one of the primary points of my long post earlier. We have to promote compromise and understanding between them, which I do not believe we have done historically. If you want to solve a conflict non-diplomatically using military force then, yes, you can take one side and destroy the other - that works, but not with diplomacy.

[feakbeak]

Hang on. How can Israel deny freedom to citizens of "neighboring states"?Easy, you drive tanks into the West Bank and force all the citizens out of their homes and allow Israeli citizens to settle the area.

[Ugg]

I disagree here. When deciding which foreign regimes to support, the U.S. should support those governments who give their citizens the most freedom.

Israel is not perfect, but compared to the countries around it, it is a bastion of freedom.

Yeah, right. Lump the few muslim states that do support freedom, like Jordan and Turkey, in with all the rest. That's progressive now isn't it! Freedom and democracy seem to be the key words of the hour, too bad people seem to ignore all the human rights abuses in Israel, simply because it is the land of christ. Oh well, ignorance is bliss, right?

[clayj]

Easy, you drive tanks into the West Bank and force all the citizens out of their homes and allow Israeli citizens to settle the area.Didn't that happen in either 1967 or 1973? Either way, it was more than 30 years ago. In the meantime, none of the neighboring Arab governments have done a damn thing to help out the Palestinians... they have simply left them to rot at the hands of the Israelis.

[feakbeak]

Didn't that happen in either 1967 or 1973? Either way, it was more than 30 years ago. In the meantime, none of the neighboring Arab governments have done a damn thing to help out the Palestinians... they have simply left them to rot at the hands of the Israelis.2001 (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/israel.html) as IJ Reilly has mentioned.

Also, "doing nothing", while not ideal, is a lot better than what the Israelis have done.

[Peterkro]

Please provide some form of basis for this claim. Or put an 'I think...' in front of your statement to qualify it.

This is the kind of thing that sets political discussion off on the wrong tone. How long will it take for some indignant righty to post an equally inflammatory (and equally unsourced) response?
For Bush see theft of 2000 US presidental election and his connections to the House of Saud,for both how do you think capitalism survives,by the theft of resources from around the world by miltary force from the slave trade to kickbacks from UN oil sanctions program.I,m also a little miffed about your Civics 101 rules on discussion, everybody can only share their opinion, if they use other peoples predujuces to back up the opinion is neither here nor there.

[clayj]

2001 (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/israel.html) as IJ Reilly has mentioned.

Also, "doing nothing", while not ideal, is a lot better than what the Israelis have done.Well, something happened in 2001, I agree, but the fact is that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been occupied by Israel for over 30 years now. This represents plenty of time for the neighboring Islamic governments to do something for the Palestinian refugees aside from just bitching about Israel. As far as I know, they have ALL refused to allow the Palestinians to relocate into their countries and become citizens.

Remember, we're talking about a few million Israelis surrounded by a few HUNDRED million Arabs who have, in the past, declared their intention to eradicate Israel. I think they're entitled to be aggressively defensive about their position.

[evilernie]

*steps down off soapbox* - Sorry for the lengthy post.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

[Peterkro]

aggressive defense is a oxymoron along with military intelligence et al.

[mactastic]

For Bush see theft of 2000 US presidental election and his connections to the House of Saud,for both how do you think capitalism survives,by the theft of resources from around the world by miltary force from the slave trade to kickbacks from UN oil sanctions program.I,m also a little miffed about your Civics 101 rules on discussion, everybody can only share their opinion, if they use other peoples predujuces to back up the opinion is neither here nor there.

I'm unhappy about the SCOTUS's decision in Bush v. Gore myself, but calling it theft is going to far IMHO unless you have some proof that no one else has seen.

Look, you know the name of the game in the Political Forum. Source your claims. Bush is a thief? Provide proof. Proof goes beyond just saying 'see theft of 2000 presidential election'.

I'm sorry you feel slighted by my singling you out here, but I do understand how some of the people who complain about the rabid tendancies of the left wing around here, and I'd like to address some of their concerns when it's appropriate. There's been a lot of heated rhetoric thrown around, (I'm guilty of it as well - but I have been called on it before also) but we have standards here. Unsourced claims are frowned upon.

Similarly, I would ask those on the political right to step in and say something when you see one of your own crossing the line as well.

[skunk]

Well, something happened in 2001, I agree, but the fact is that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been occupied by Israel for over 30 years now. This represents plenty of time for the neighboring Islamic governments to do something for the Palestinian refugees aside from just bitching about Israel. As far as I know, they have ALL refused to allow the Palestinians to relocate into their countries and become citizens.
If they did, would that end the Palestine Problem? The Palestinians were evicted from their own land. Why should they give up their claims?

[mactastic]

...a few HUNDRED million Arabs who have, in the past, declared their intention to eradicate Israel.

Stereotype much?

[Nickygoat]

I agree they treat their citizens well, but at the same time they are denying freedoms to citizens of neighboring states. This behavior should be heavily criticized by the US - but it is not.
Which freedoms are they denying to their neighbours? Do you refer to neighbours as Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese etc. or Palestinians? If it's the former then why are you complaining? The Israelis have no business interfering in GCC states, even if they should. If it's the latter then the Palestinians have more rights, better education and higher life expectancy than the people of different countries. Might not be upto Israeli standards but better than the rest of the Middle East. Nor do most have the right to vote. Do you wish to criticize the Israelis or the Egyptians, Syrians etc.? At least the Israelis aren't denying the right to exist, unlike most of the GCC countries.

[clayj]

aggressive defense is a oxymoron along with military intelligence et al.Oxymorons are not necessarily incorrect. If the Israelis were aggressively OFFENSIVE, they'd've continued their push outward and taken Lebanon, Jordan, and more of Egypt and made them a part of Greater Israel. (And they'd've exterminated all Arabs inside their occupied territory.)

Instead, they've been aggressively DEFENSIVE. They've done what they felt was necessary to secure their position, and nothing more. For a small, vastly outnumbered country that (supposedly) has an impressive nuclear arsenal, they've shown a lot of restraint.

[mactastic]

It's a good thing we're fighting the terrorists over in Iraq so we don't have to face them in our cities, isn't it? Isn't that the rationale de jour for our invasion of Iraq?

[Nickygoat]

If they did, would that end the Palestine Problem? The Palestinians were evicted from their own land. Why should they give up their claims?
Umm historically it was the land of the Jews first. They were evicted first and have reclaimed it. Judaism being more than a thousand years older than Islam.

[mactastic]

Umm historically it was the land of the Jews first. They were evicted first and have reclaimed it. Judaism being more than a thousand years older than Islam.

Who had it before the Jews? Humanity is estimated to be around 10,000 years old after all...

[Peterkro]

Umm historically it was the land of the Jews first. They were evicted first and have reclaimed it. Judaism being more than a thousand years older than Islam.
umm historically they are all semites that is Arabs.Judaism is a religion not a racial grouping and I can't be arsed with sources I'm sure you can all use google.

[feakbeak]

Which freedoms are they denying to their neighbours? Do you refer to neighbours as Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese etc. or Palestinians? If it's the former then why are you complaining? The Israelis have no business interfering in GCC states, even if they should. If it's the latter then the Palestinians have more rights, better education and higher life expectancy than the people of different countries. Might not be upto Israeli standards but better than the rest of the Middle East. Nor do most have the right to vote. Do you wish to criticize the Israelis or the Egyptians, Syrians etc.? At least the Israelis aren't denying the right to exist, unlike most of the GCC countries.Neighboring states was a poor choice of language. I was speaking of their treatment of the Palestinians, who do not have a state of their own and are living in land occupied by Israel. Whether they are considered citizens of Israel or not, technically I am not sure. Still, the injustices enacted against them by Israel is horrible and cannot be ignored simply because the Israeli government treats Israelis well.

[clayj]

If they did, would that end the Palestine Problem? The Palestinians were evicted from their own land. Why should they give up their claims?Look, here's the deal:

1. There never WAS a nation of Palestine. There was simply land, administered by the British, upon which lived a variety of Semitic (they're not Jews, but the Palestinians ARE Semitic) peoples.

2. The UN, in all its infinite wisdom (sarcasm!), decided that the Jews needed a country of their own so that the horrors of WWII would never be repeated. Between the UN and the British, the decision was made to give Palestine to the Jews.

3. No one apparently gave any thought to the fact that the new Israelis would want to have some say in who would be an Israeli. Some of the locals didn't like the new management, and some of the old hatreds were fired up again (esp. since Israel = "Jews living next door to Arabs"), and so you have the situation today.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians don't deserve their own country. But since the UN *gave* that land to the Israelis, I think the Israelis should have final word over what land that was given to them will be re-given to someone else. And I *am* saying that the neighboring states have done a crap job of trying to help out the Palestinians.

[clayj]

Stereotype much?Only when it's accurate. :)

[mactastic]

Only when it's accurate. :)

So your contention is that ALL arabs want Israel destroyed? Come on...

[clayj]

So your contention is that ALL arabs want Israel destroyed? Come on...Maybe not now, but in the past, yes. (As I said.)

[Ugg]

Umm historically it was the land of the Jews first. They were evicted first and have reclaimed it. Judaism being more than a thousand years older than Islam.

Wow!!!! You really take a simplistic view of history, don't you? Are you suggesting that Native Americans should start rounding up immigrants and eliminating them too? The world is filled with displaced ethnic groups, unfortunately there is no end in sight. Let's face it, the Brits along with zionism created a huge mess. Anyone who thinks the holy land belongs to the jews simply because of what is in the bible needs help.

[mactastic]

Maybe not now, but in the past, yes. (As I said.)

Wha wha what??? When in the past? I know you've said it, but that doesn't make it true.

[Peterkro]

Maybe not now, but in the past, yes. (As I said.)
What every single one of the several 100's of millions,thats controversial even by my standards.
:)

[feakbeak]

Look, here's the deal:

1. There never WAS a nation of Palestine. There was simply land, administered by the British, upon which lived a variety of Semitic (they're not Jews, but the Palestinians ARE Semitic) peoples.

2. The UN, in all its infinite wisdom (sarcasm!), decided that the Jews needed a country of their own so that the horrors of WWII would never be repeated. Between the UN and the British, the decision was made to give Palestine to the Jews.

3. No one apparently gave any thought to the fact that the new Israelis would want to have some say in who would be an Israeli. Some of the locals didn't like the new management, and some of the old hatreds were fired up again (esp. since Israel = "Jews living next door to Arabs"), and so you have the situation today.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians don't deserve their own country. But since the UN *gave* that land to the Israelis, I think the Israelis should have final word over what land that was given to them will be re-given to someone else. And I *am* saying that the neighboring states have done a crap job of trying to help out the Palestinians.
You have some good points here and I agree the decision to give that land to Israelis to form Israel was not well-thought out and has caused a great deal of anger and resentment towards the west in that region. I also agree that the surrounding states have not helped the situation in the decades since the creation of Israel.

My point is that the Israel-Palestine conflict will not be resolved by our past and current course of action. Western involvement in this problem has only made it worse, not better and by continuing to back Israel blindly while they commit crimes against humanity should not be tolerated as part of US foreign policy. We need to work with Israel, Palestinian leaders and surrounding countries to find a peaceful solution that, IMO, must include an independent state of Palestine. Our credibility is so far gone in that region that I am not sure we can be part of the solution any more.

[skunk]

Maybe not now, but in the past, yes. (As I said.)In the past as in "during the Ottoman Empire"? When thousands of Jews were living peacefully in Palestine next to their Arab neighbours? Or when the Christians threw the Jews out of Portugal and the Ottomans gave them refuge? Which past are you referring to?

[clayj]

In the past as in "during the Ottoman Empire"? When thousands of Jews were living peacefully in Palestine next to their Arab neighbours? Or when the Christians threw the Jews out of Portugal and the Ottomans gave them refuge? Which past are you referring to?Circa 1948 to the present (less so NOW).

Not only was there never a state of Palestine, but there was never a Jewish state, either, until 1948. Suddenly, a bunch of Palestinians found themselves living in a country that did not desire their presence. This is what started all of the problems, I believe.

But the fact is that Israel is here to stay, and all the wishing and threats in the world will not change that, despite what Arafat and his crowd want(ed).

[mactastic]

It doesn't help that all Jews want to kill every Palestinian. Nor that all Christians want to kill all Muslims.

(What, they did in the past! I'm not talking about NOW, jeez. And yes I heard it from a very reputable source. And I'll say it over and over again until you have to accept it as truth!)
;)

[skunk]

(What, they did in the past! I'm not talking about NOW, jeez. And yes I heard it from a very reputable source. And I'll say it over and over again until you have to accept it as truth!)
;)Or "islam", as they call it over there...

[IJ Reilly]

Well, something happened in 2001, I agree, but the fact is that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been occupied by Israel for over 30 years now. This represents plenty of time for the neighboring Islamic governments to do something for the Palestinian refugees aside from just bitching about Israel. As far as I know, they have ALL refused to allow the Palestinians to relocate into their countries and become citizens.

Remember, we're talking about a few million Israelis surrounded by a few HUNDRED million Arabs who have, in the past, declared their intention to eradicate Israel. I think they're entitled to be aggressively defensive about their position.

That something was a full-scale military occupation accompanied by much destruction. I agree, the surrounding Arab states haven't done much to ease the pain of the Palestinians, but we here aren't going to solve the thorny problems in this part of the world, even on paper, let alone on the ground. My point was, the US needs a more mature policy where this conflict is concerned, one that doesn't rely so heavily on Cold War predicates. Supporting a peace process rhetorically doesn't mean much if it's clear that in the end, the US will fully support Israel no matter what they do.

[Nickygoat]

Wow!!!! You really take a simplistic view of history, don't you? Are you suggesting that Native Americans should start rounding up immigrants and eliminating them too? The world is filled with displaced ethnic groups, unfortunately there is no end in sight. Let's face it, the Brits along with zionism created a huge mess. Anyone who thinks the holy land belongs to the jews simply because of what is in the bible needs help.
that's too daft to even reply to :D (even though I did :confused: )

[Nickygoat]

umm historically they are all semites that is Arabs.Judaism is a religion not a racial grouping and I can't be arsed with sources I'm sure you can all use google.
That's correct but it has been turned into a religious debate not a racial debate so...? How do you divide them - in your mind. The difference is very real for Jews and Arabs.

[Peterkro]

That's correct but it has been turned into a religious debate not a racial debate so...? How do you divide them - in your mind. The difference is very real for Jews and Arabs.
Dividing them seems a bit daft but if needed then on the lines of those that are ripping off their fellows and those that are not.The people ,Israeli and Palastinian, who are making cash out of this conflict.Also capitalists from Lockheed Martin and eastern European small arms manufactorers to oil companies who are happy to exploit the region.

[Nickygoat]

Dividing them seems a bit daft but if needed then on the lines of those that are ripping off their fellows and those that are not.The people ,Israeli and Palastinian, who are making cash out of this conflict.Also capitalists from Lockheed Martin and eastern European small arms manufactorers to oil companies who are happy to exploit the region.
Agree completely but I would also add that there are people who have power, not just money, who are reaping the rewards of the discord.

[Peterkro]

Agree completely but I would also add that there are people who have power, not just money, who are reaping the rewards of the discord.
I,m not sure what your getting at here,I would have thought power and money were interchangeable in this problem?

[Nickygoat]

I,m not sure what your getting at here,I would have thought power and money were interchangeable in this problem?
Not necessarily. The leaders and members of Hamas and Hezbollah have plenty of power but not a great deal of money, particularly at local levels. Their influence in terms of power, or fear, is far greater than any monetary value. Generally the two are interchangeable but not always.
Time for bed though :)

[Peterkro]

Not necessarily. The leaders and members of Hamas and Hezbollah have plenty of power but not a great deal of money, particularly at local levels. Their influence in terms of power, or fear, is far greater than any monetary value. Generally the two are interchangeable but not always.
Time for bed though :)
O.K. I now see your point however to think they don't have money is not quite correct they are funding lots of social projects in the occupied territories and are gathering support because of this.

[toontra]

My first post in this forum for quite a while!

I was against the Iraq war for several reasons. Firstly (and mainly) I suspected that we were being fed a load of b.s. about WMD and terrorist links in order to justify military action. We know the answer to that one now, don't we.

Also I thought that, as Blair was told before the war by his own advisors, any such action would increase the likelihood of terrorist reprisals against the UK.

Thanks, Blair, for involving our country in an illegal war and consequently placing the lives of Londoners in direct danger.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, and by the way, the London bombings might not have been such a terrible thing at all -- at least not according to FOX (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/foxandfriends-200507070004.mov).

[mactastic]

Yep.. Londoners take heart. FAUX has declared that the your suffering works to our (the Western world's) advantage.

[Sayhey]

Those silly world leaders who actually think global warming and African debt relief are legitimate topics of discussion should thank al Qaeda for putting it all in perspective. Terrorism is the only subject, and George Bush is our leader (kindly stand at attention when reading the last sentence.) Thanks Faux News for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

Hey, toontra, welcome back!

[diamond geezer]

These bombing show that the "War on Terrorism" is being won. They are a sign that terrorist groups are getting desperate and are in their last throes. Better in Iraq than in the USA.

Opps sorry, wrong country.

[dejo]

Thanks, Blair, for involving our country in an illegal war and consequently placing the lives of Londoners in direct danger.

So, Blair is to blame and not the terrorists?

[feakbeak]

Oh, and by the way, the London bombings might not have been such a terrible thing at all -- at least not according to FOX (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/foxandfriends-200507070004.mov).Thanks for the link, IJ. Ugh, that's disgusting. I agree that terrorism is a significant issue that demands serious and immediate attention. However, they spoke as if global warming and worse yet, African aid weren't important issues, as if they had no right to ever be in the spotlight. 3,000 Africans, mostly children, die from Malaria each day and Malaria is something that we know how to treat and prevent with proven methods and easily obtainable supplies. Why shouldn't that be a hot topic in the spotlight? Idiots!

[toontra]

So, Blair is to blame and not the terrorists?

Where did I say Blair was to blame for today's bombings? Please, don't distort.

[dejo]

Where did I say Blair was to blame for today's bombings? Please, don't distort.

Saying Blair placed "the lives of Londoners in direct danger" sounds like a form of blame to me.

[Lau]

Oh, and by the way, the London bombings might not have been such a terrible thing at all -- at least not according to FOX (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/foxandfriends-200507070004.mov).

Wow, what a well rounded and unbiased news report :rolleyes:

[toontra]

Saying Blair placed "the lives of Londoners in direct danger" sounds like a form of blame to me.

Are you sincerely saying that you can't differentiate between the concepts of:

1) Blair having undertaken a course of action which he had been pre-warned would increase the likelihood of the UK being the target of terrorists attacks

2) Blair being directly personally responsible for today's bombings

If yes, I don't think we have the basis for a discussion. If no, then you are deliberately distorting what I said.

[IJ Reilly]

However, they spoke as if global warming and worse yet, African aid weren't important issues, as if they had no right to ever be in the spotlight.

I've thought about this for awhile and tried to come up with a more charitable explanation for these remarks, but for the life of me I can't. Clearly some people are actually cheered by these events because it gets us back on their topic and off of topics that might concern others. I mean, how dark does one's soul need to be to think this way? Come to that, how dissimilar are their views to the views of the people who perpetrate these attacks? Stop me if I'm going overboard here, but doesn't that make them essentially two sides of the same bad penny?

[mactastic]

Someone at Kos (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/5/155625/7722) put together a list of these kinds of things:

Foreign Policy

Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

Executing Minors

Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice

Pop Culture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

Self-image

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

God

Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

Stem Cell Research

Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

Use of Force

Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort

Bush's War in Iraq

Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster

Press

Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press

Free Speech

Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion

Individuals

Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity

Cooperation

Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together

Tolerance

Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live

Conscience

Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection

Origins

Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government

Fear

Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral

Women

Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be

Marriage

Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other

Some I buy into, others are distortions or exaggerations.

[dejo]

Are you sincerely saying that you can't differentiate between the concepts of:

1) Blair having undertaken a course of action which he had been pre-warned would increase the likelihood of the UK being the target of terrorists attacks

2) Blair being directly personally responsible for today's bombings

If yes, I don't think we have the basis for a discussion. If no, then you are deliberately distorting what I said.

I can differentiate. But I think just because Blair undertook a course of action that increased the likelihood of the UK being the target of terrorist attacks, does not mean that the terrorists are forced to move forward with that. If we don't do things in fear of what the terrorists MIGHT do, then they have won.

[Bobak]

It is strange how these attacks happened at the perfect moment to disrupt the G8 conference, and giving bush an opportunity to divert the discussion to "war on terrorism" allowing them to totally ignore other issue such as poverty in Africa.

it could just be a coincidence that this happened at the same time as the G8 conference, but there is room for people to speculate about certain G8 leaders planning this so they could avoid having to bother with issues that concern Africa and helping people that are in real need and so that they can concentrate on more important issues, such as seeing to terrorists in countries that coincidentally happen to have huge oil reserves.

of course this is all speculation and maybe i shouldn't be speculating about issues as important as this, but i do personally think that G8 leaders can easily gain more out of an attack like this than any terrorist can (based on the fact that possible terrorist motives seem appear to be very "lame" and i personally think that if a terrorist that wanted "revenge" on Blair of attacking Iraq would have done slightly higher scale attack.)

[mactastic]

I sincerly doubt any of the G8 leaders would willingly participate in the murder of innocent British citizens.

The simplest explanation is usually correct. And in this case that leads right to radical Islamic terrorists.

[toontra]

I can differentiate. But I think just because Blair undertook a course of action that increased the likelihood of the UK being the target of terrorist attacks, does not mean that the terrorists are forced to move forward with that. If we don't do things in fear of what the terrorists MIGHT do, then they have won.

Quite. My point is that the invasion was unjustified in its own right, but also had the added, forseen, consequence of increasing the likelyhood of today's events.

[Xtremehkr]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I know that there is a reluctance to accept that there may be any reason at all for a foreign interest to attack us. There are, in reality, more than a few instances where it can be shown actions like this are reactions to what western nations have done in the past.

As long as these actions continue to occur, it won't matter how many countries are invaded or bombed. In fact, the further we spread our defenses, the better it is for them.

[zimv20]

I think just because Blair undertook a course of action that increased the likelihood of the UK being the target of terrorist attacks, does not mean that the terrorists are forced to move forward with that. If we don't do things in fear of what the terrorists MIGHT do, then they have won.
"if you poke the bear with this stick, he might maul you."
"i'm not going to let the bear dictate what i do! give me that stick!"

[skunk]

"if you poke the bear with this stick, he might maul you."
"i'm not going to let the bear dictate what i do! give me that stick!"I think that's the point. Too many people want to prove they're not afraid of the bear. But after being poked with the stick a number of times, he tends to react quite unreasonably when told to ignore it.

[dejo]

"if you poke the bear with this stick, he might maul you."
"i'm not going to let the bear dictate what i do! give me that stick!"

At least we agree that terrorists are the same as animals.

[skunk]

At least we agree that terrorists are the same as animals.What's a terrorist? A B52 pilot dropping 10,000 lbs of bombs from 50,000 feet onto a city full of people he can't see and flying on? Or a suicide bomber blowing himself up and taking 20 people with him? Do the victims care?

[dejo]

What's a terrorist? A B52 pilot dropping 10,000 lbs of bombs from 50,000 feet onto a city full of people he can't see and flying on? Or a suicide bomber blowing himself up and taking 20 people with him? Do the victims care?

To me, it depends if the victims are civilians or not and what the bomber is targeting.

[clayj]

What's a terrorist? A B52 pilot dropping 10,000 lbs of bombs from 50,000 feet onto a city full of people he can't see and flying on? Or a suicide bomber blowing himself up and taking 20 people with him? Do the victims care?The rules, as they exist, make clear the difference between a terrorist and a soldier: The soldier wears a uniform and is in the employ of a specific, legitimate government. The terrorist does not.

Now, if the terrorists would like to start wearing an official uniform, that'd be fine. We'd be able to screen them out at the airports, ports, and train stations. But these ********** are walking around in civilian clothes.

Also, what government do they represent? When the US and its allies went into Iraq, it was their governments (US, UK, Pol, Den, Aus, etc.) vs. the Iraqi government. They tried to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but regrettably civilians are sometimes injured or killed in time of war; this is how it has been FOREVER. If the terrorists want to try to attack our military, let 'em bring it on.

But all this running around in civilian clothes and blowing up civilians ON PURPOSE is BS. Don't compare the military to terrorists... they follow totally different sets of rules.

[skunk]

To me, it depends if the victims are civilians or not and what the bomber is targeting.So it doesn't matter whom he kills, it's whether he meant to kill them?

[skunk]

The rules, as they exist, make clear the difference between a terrorist and a soldier: The soldier wears a uniform and is in the employ of a specific, legitimate government. The terrorist does not.Enlighten me: did these rules apply in the 1770s?

Now, if the terrorists would like to start wearing an official uniform, that'd be fine. We'd be able to screen them out at the airports, ports, and train stations. But these ********** are walking around in civilian clothes.They've got a war to win. What do you expect?

Also, what government do they represent? When the US and its allies went into Iraq, it was their governments (US, UK, Pol, Den, Aus, etc.) vs. the Iraqi government. They tried to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but regrettably civilians are sometimes injured or killed in time of war; this is how it has been FOREVER. If the terrorists want to try to attack our military, let 'em bring it on.Wonderful. Why don't you tell that to the war widows at your local base? And then go and tell it to the families in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But all this running around in civilian clothes and blowing up civilians IN PURPOSE is BS. Don't compare the military to terrorists... they follow totally different sets of rules.Do they?

[clayj]

Enlighten me: did these rules apply in the 1770s?What happened in the 1770s is probably no longer relevant, but the answer is yes, they did... of course, back then the overriding principle was HONOR. There was no honor in killing civilians, and of course it was not possible to create large explosions using a fistful of C4. Heck, back then they took warring so honorably that soldiers would stand up, in a line, and exchange fire with the enemy.

They've got a war to win. What do you expect?Oh, so they ARE soldiers, just out of uniform? That makes things MUCH easier for us... you see, if we just assume that they are ALL soldiers, we can just wipe them ALL out and feel OK about it.

The principle of what makes a soldier a soldier is what allows us to keep the war restricted, as much as possible, to armed forces vs. other armed forces. What the terrorists are doing is murder, plain and simple.

Wonderful. Why don't you tell that to the war widows at your local base? And then go and tell it to the families in Iraq and Afghanistan.Um, my dad was in the USAF and served in Vietnam, so I don't need to be lectured on the military lifestyle. He could easily have been killed, and I am eternally thankful that he wasn't... but he knew the risks going in, and they ALL do. It's far too easy for people who aren't in the military to criticize the military for doing their jobs.

Do they?Yes, they do. And if you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you.

[skunk]

Oh, so they ARE soldiers, just out of uniform? That makes things MUCH easier for us... you see, if we just assume that they are ALL soldiers, we can just wipe them ALL out and feel OK about it.

The principle of what makes a soldier a soldier is what allows us to keep the war restricted, as much as possible, to armed forces vs. other armed forces.No, it's how we keep the fight on our terms.

Um, my dad was in the USAF and served in Vietnam, so I don't need to be lectured on the military lifestyle. He could easily have been killed, and I am eternally thankful that he wasn't... but he knew the risks going in, and they ALL do. It's far too easy for people who aren't in the military to criticize the military for doing their jobs.I'm not criticizing the military. I'm saying that "Bring it on" was a foolish thing to say when Bush said it, and it's even more foolish now.

Yes, they do. And if you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you.Spare it for the families.

[Xtremehkr]

Link. (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/)

Not to belittle the situation, but this is getting an awful lot of media coverage.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/BBC%20Chart.jpg

But it is not uncommon for 30 or more Iraqis a day to die bacause of our occupation. Do you think this is winning hearts and minds?

[miloblithe]

So does the expanded use (by the US and others) of contractors (non-soldiers who perform military duties) also break the rules of war? They don't wear uniforms.

[skunk]

So does the expanded use (by the US and others) of contractors (non-soldiers who perform military duties) also break the rules of war? They don't wear uniforms.But they are inordinately valuable: 4 contractors = 700+ Fallujah residents.

[miloblithe]

But they are inordinately valuable: 4 contractors = 700+ Fallujah residents.

Well, plus all the US soldiers and others who died there. And actually, the US pulled out of Fallujah after that incident--which of course led to insurgents flooding in and the eventual decision to 're-take' the city.

[blackfox]

whew...long thread.

First off, my sympathies to those of you in London who have been affected by this tragedy. This being the day after winning the 2012 Olympics, what rotten luck...perhaps the French were behind it (bad, bad joke...sorry).

I need to let this all sink in some more before I respond with much in the way of thoughtful commentary, but I will say this:

I do believe this shows that our energies (and monies) have been used poorly in the pursuit of lessening terrorism. It also shows how vunerable we all are and how resourceful and powerful the nature of the "enemy" is.

In a world as it is now, I hope everyone can realize the danger and foolishness of letting ideology and politics trump pragmatism and sound policy.

[IJ Reilly]

More warm 'n cuddly thoughts on this event from Fox. (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/dayside-200507070007.mov)

[Thanatoast]

Those silly world leaders who actually think global warming and African debt relief are legitimate topics of discussion should thank al Qaeda for putting it all in perspective. Terrorism is the only subject, and George Bush is our leader (kindly stand at attention when reading the last sentence.) Thanks Faux News for clearing that up.
That's exactly what I was thinking. With this attack, the terrorists have given Bush, Inc. exactly what they want. An excuse to turn the world's attention away from problems like African poverty and global warming, and turns it back to military budgets.

Stupid damn terrorists. This conference was the first chance for the rest of the major powers to shame Bush into actions that should've been taken long ago - not that he would've, but at least he'd have to be bald-faced about saying he doesn't give a flying **** - and turned it back towards his favorite subject.

Maybe they really *do* know what they're doing. This is guaranteed to make Bush even more cocky, and also bring us ever closer to destroying ourselves and our ideals in the name of "security".

[miloblithe]

More warm 'n cuddly thoughts on this event from Fox. (http://mediamatters.org/static/video/dayside-200507070007.mov)

Love em' to death. Those cute and cuddly Fox folks.

[dejo]

Link. (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/)

Not to belittle the situation, but this is getting an awful lot of media coverage.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/images/BBC%20Chart.jpg

But it is not uncommon for 30 or more Iraqis a day to die bacause of our occupation. Do you think this is winning hearts and minds?

Any chance of seeing this chart with the insurgents separated from the Iraqi civilian, police, and military deaths?

[Xtremehkr]

Any chance of seeing this chart with the insurgents separated from the Iraqi civilian, police, and military deaths?

Graphical representation has more impact than words alone, but considering that it is usually one suicide bomber to multiple victims, the outcome changes little.

Link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm)

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

For some reason the Pentagon is not publishing official numbers. The Pentagons tendency to promote positive aspects of their involvement does not bode well when it comes to their reluctance to publish statistics which are not as supportive of their agenda.

Link.
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm)

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the US-led invasion last year, according to public health experts who estimate there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.

The US-based researchers found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.

The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by US air strikes on towns and cities, they said.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Mr Roberts said.

The report comes just days before the US presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue.

Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations sanctions blocking food and medical imports.

But the researchers described their findings after the war as shocking.

Link. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/13/opinion/fenton/main660728.shtml)

We know exactly how many American and British soldiers have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We can only guess at the number of Iraqis, both military and civilian. We can be sure of only one thing: it far exceeds coalition casualties. Civilians, like truth, are usually the first casualties of war.

In the early days of the invasion of Iraq, Gen. Tommy Franks famously told reporters at his headquarters in Qatar, "We don't do body counts." The Pentagon and our British allies have stuck to that position ever since. They have never given an accounting, or even a rough estimate, of the number of Iraqi civilians who have died in the bombing and crossfire of combat during the invasion, or in he deadly insurgency that still wracks the country.

The United States and Britain, under the Geneva Convention and Hague Regulations, have a binding responsibility as occupying authorities to prevent civilian deaths, including those resulting from the breakdown of law and order and inadequate health care or sanitation. So you might think a little accounting would be in order.

I'm perplexed, we have up to the minute media coverage of the body count in coalition nations when it comes to the war on terror. And yet "We don't do body counts" when it comes to our own actions, why not.

Focus on the posts as a whole, the overall impact of invading Iraq has been a high death toll for Iraqis. This based upon a war where the facts were fixed around the policy. And we still wonder why people are attacking us.

Let's not even go into the history of western nations involvement in the middle east before terrorist attacks even began.

Remember, who helped establish the Taliban in the first place.

Link. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102243/)

Earlier this week, I cited recently declassified documents to show that Ronald Reagan did indeed play a major role in ending the Cold War. Now it's time to note that a similar set of documents shows that Reagan also played a major role in bringing on the terrorist war that followed—specifically, in abetting the rise of Osama Bin Laden.





The article is fair and does cite that Carter had some involvement. But Reagan took things to a whole new level. If nothing else it shows that there was western involvement in the affairs of the middle east before there was middle eastern involvement in the west. Who started the problem and who is continuing it?

WHat exactly the is the Talibans' beef?

[Ugg]

The rules, as they exist, make clear the difference between a terrorist and a soldier: The soldier wears a uniform and is in the employ of a specific, legitimate government. The terrorist does not.



Finally, someone who speaks the truth, now we know that all those mercenaries in Iraq are terrorists. No uniform, no legal protection under Iraqi OR American law, and the military at best tolerates them. Seems terrorism is a pretty flexible idea in your mind.

[FFTT]

I think the Taliban's "beef" may just be a vegetarian entree.

Consider the value of Afghanistan's entire annual opium crop
and then consider how those who control it might go to any
length to protect their interests.

Then consider how much more difficult protecting those interests would be with a bunch of oil pipeline contractors and their security forces stomping about their territory.

Add to this the well known fact that these old time hard line fundamentalists simply don't want their women getting any wild Western ideas about equality and that is enough motive for me.

[Lyle]

It is strange how these attacks happened at the perfect moment to disrupt the G8 conference, and giving bush an opportunity to divert the discussion to "war on terrorism" allowing them to totally ignore other issue such as poverty in Africa.

it could just be a coincidence that this happened at the same time as the G8 conference, but there is room for people to speculate about certain G8 leaders planning this so they could avoid having to bother with issues that concern Africa and helping people that are in real need and so that they can concentrate on more important issues, such as seeing to terrorists in countries that coincidentally happen to have huge oil reserves.I think there's a place for your progressive ideas in this organization:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- A senior leader from a coalition of radical Islamic political parties charged Friday that the attacks in London might have been orchestrated by the West as a strategy to turn public opinion against Muslims, a claim likely to produce outrage around the globe.

"This is very tragic," said Liaqat Baluch, a prominent lawmaker from the six-party Islamic coalition that comprises the main opposition to President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. "But this could also be a strategy by Europe and America to line up against Muslims. They are directly saying that Muslim groups or al-Qaida are behind these bombings. Then how can it be ruled out that these are not engineered blasts?" he said.

When asked again if he was actually charging the British or American governments with having a hand in the bombings, Baluch said: "This cannot be ruled out. All countries do this to project their people as victims."link (http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/international/news/20050708p2g00m0in027000c.html)

[IJ Reilly]

Well personally I think it was the little green saucer men conspiring with Steven Spielberg. But does anyone want to publish my theories? Of course they don't -- and that's even more proof that I'm right!

[FFTT]

The BBC is still reporting that this event " may have been "
the act of Al Qaeda.

They are also now reporting more fatalities.

What bugs me about all this is that IF... we consider any other possibility, it results in accusations of conspiracy theorist, religious bigot, liberal etc.

There is SO MUCH MONEY at stake in any military conflict that I simply can not rule out other options.

Public support for our involvement in Iraq is faltering.

The United States is finding it more and more difficult to recruit troop reinforcements and the Bush administration does not dare ask congress to reinstate a draft.

The British government was equally under pressure to
end their involvement and bring their troops home.

The Rove CIA leak and Downing street memos have caused increasing pressure on representatives to seriously consider
impeachment proceedings.

This " attack " just seems all too convenient to rule out
covert operations by those who would gain from renewed
public support for the war effort.

But I know nosink, see nosink, hear nosink

http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/275/23/JB.jpg

[skunk]

The BBC is still reporting that this event " may have been "
the act of Al Qaeda.

They are also now reporting more fatalities.

What bugs me about all this is that IF... we consider any other possibility, it results in accusations of conspiracy theorist, religious bigot, liberal etc.

There is SO MUCH MONEY at stake in any military conflict that I simply can not rule out other options.

Public support for our involvement in Iraq is faltering.

The United States is finding it more and more difficult to recruit troop reinforcements and the Bush administration does not dare ask congress to reinstate a draft.

The British government was equally under pressure to
end their involvement and bring their troops home.

The Rove CIA leak and Downing street memos have caused increasing pressure on representatives to seriously consider
impeachment proceedings.

This " attack " just seems all too convenient to rule out
covert operations by those who would gain from renewed
public support for the war effort.

But I know nosink, see nosink, hear nosink

http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/275/23/JB.jpgGet a grip.

[FFTT]

Skunk, you are free to express your opinions as anyone in these forums, but I am offended by your personal flame.

When your MOD begins to send more young brave British lads home in body bags, then perhaps your outlook will change.

[skunk]

Skunk, you are free to express your opinions as anyone in these forums, but I am offended by your personal flame.I'm sorry, perhaps I should have added a Smiley. But really, this conspiracy theory is absurd. There are plenty of people around with genuine grievances to motivate them. What's the military pay-off, anyway?

[FFTT]

Fair enough mate ;)

Try to understand that I detest the idea of sending our kids into harms way without just cause.

And I say so, because much of this nightmare was avoidable.

My daughter enlisted in the U.S. Navy several years ago and is now home as a disabled Vet.

I went to visit her once at basic training and was deeply moved to see how young those kids really are.

It's seeing those young faces and knowing what their parents
and families are going through that upsets me.

More of the same is now inevitable.

[skunk]

More of the same is now inevitable.But it's not inevitable. We're not going to invade or bomb anybody over this. Iraq and Afghanistan were bad enough. These guys may well have been British.

[mactastic]

But it's not inevitable. We're not going to invade or bomb anybody over this. Iraq and Afghanistan were bad enough. These guys may well have been British.

Oh come on... Syria? Iran? It's not like Iraq attacked us either.

Where's the British drive for empire gone off to? ;)

Actually I was very impressed with Blair's speech. Resiliant yet non-threatening. And he didn't use the phrase 'bring it on' once, nor did he at any point resemble a deer caught in headlights.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Oh come on... Syria? Iran? It's not like Iraq attacked us either.

Where's the British drive for empire gone off to? ;)

Actually I was very impressed with Blair's speech. Resiliant yet non-threatening. And he didn't use the phrase 'bring it on' once, nor did he at any point resemble a deer caught in headlights.One of the few European countries with a backbone.
:D This is going to help Blair just as it did Bush in my view. I like Tony though i no longer can say that about George. I think we have to get to the root of this and thats the education sector or lack of one in these extreme countries. Kids are being taught to hate to the point of killing themself and thats where we have to attack these countries. Hate is easy and is being preached, Just look at history there are so many hate groups its nuts and these Islamic Thugs are no different.

[IJ Reilly]

Ah, fergedaboudit, says our man Rush. (http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/limbaugh-200507080004.mp3)

Hey, I already have.

[IJ Reilly]

And only on Fox, a little Biblical justice. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The_OReilly_Factor_hunt_biblical_london.mov)

[IJ Reilly]

They blow up Paris, and who cares? (http://mediamatters.org/static/audio/oreilly-200507080002.mp3)

...said Fox commentator John Gibson on O'Reilly's radio program.

(So where is Dr. Strangelove when you really need him?)

[feakbeak]

And only on Fox, a little Biblical justice. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/The_OReilly_Factor_hunt_biblical_london.mov)David Hunt scares me! Bibilcal justice, forcing Europe's hand, stealing money from Arab banks - the man is insane.

[IJ Reilly]

David Hunt scares me! Bibilcal justice, forcing Europe's hand, stealing money from Arab banks - the man is insane.

And he said it no less than three times, if only to make certain we weren't mistaking his point. It's so good of Fox to give a national platform to people with such important and thoughtful opinions on world events.

[blackfox]

I find the comments/theorys about British reaction to this atrocity interesting...

On one hand, some might say it will strengthen their waning resolve in reference to participation in Iraq and other ME "anti-terrorism" interventions.

OTOH, it could just as plausably lead to something compareable to Spain's reaction after their spate of bombings - a more resolute public opinion for withdrawl.

It is more interesting to speculate on the strategic purpose of these bombings by the "terrorists". Although I briefly considered the "conspiracy" theory mentioned above, there does not seem near clear enough motive or benefit to entertain it as plausible.

What does seem probable is that reaction may very well prove favorable to the terrorists either way. If this provokes more involvement militarily in the ME by Britain and Europe, it will also certainly involve a loss of social conhesion in those countries as a sizeable amount of the population will be (a) opposed to military action and/or (b) minorities who may be targets of harrassment. A very difficult situation to handle as a democratic country, lending to ineffectualness at the least. It will also cost a lot of money.

If this provokes a withdrawl of involvement from Britain and elsewhere in Europe, this will further isolate the US and at least under current leadership, lead us down the path to ruin (if only financial) by our hubris.

While it may be somewhat comforting to think of terrorists as "madmen" or "fanatics", that does not preclude them from also being at least as organized, focused, intelligent and driven as we could ever be.

That is a scary fact imo...

[miloblithe]

On one hand, some might say it will strengthen their waning resolve in reference to participation in Iraq and other ME "anti-terrorism" interventions.

OTOH, it could just as plausably lead to something compareable to Spain's reaction after their spate of bombings - a more resolute public opinion for withdrawl.

I can't really imagine that the British would be willing to give up their "special relationship" with the U.S. I don't think it's impossible. I think it will happen eventually. But I have a really hard time imagining it.

[Backtothemac]

Well, I have not been around in a while, but I have to chime up on this one.

First. The basis that all terror that is occuring is coming from us being in Iraq is complete BS. 9/11 was long before going into Iraq, so was the Cole, The first WTC attack, the beruit attack, the Riyad towers, Kenya, etc.....

In fact, I remember a certain pathetic act during the olympics when I was much younger. The bottom line is that there has to be a way to combat the terrorists (Freedom Fighters for Moxie). So, I will ask what I always ask. How do you do it if not with military force? Do you negotiate with them? Someone here please give me one viable alternative to military action.

I just wish that people would understand that we are fighting them on their soil so that we don't have to fight them on ours. Is that fair to the Iraqi's. No. Absolutely not. But that is what we are doing. Do I think this war is legal? Yes, Just, no. The right thing, Yes. Ever going to end, no. It is the most perfectly flawed response but the only alternative that we had.

Does that make sense, I did I just loose everyone.

[zimv20]

from this article about AQ recruits in the UK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688261,00.html)


Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners “attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion” because of “disillusionment with their current existence”. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

“They range from foreign nationals now naturalised and resident in the UK, arriving mainly from north Africa and the Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose forebears mainly originate from Pakistan or Kashmir.

“In addition . . . a significant number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.”

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

the article goes on to say that blair cites examples, as BTTM did, of non-iraq-related terrorist acts, then concludes that iraq is not the catalyst here (a bit of flawed logic, imo).

if the study's assessment is correct (it was "A joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier"), then the cause is simply the way the US and UK behave in muslim countries and against muslims. while that is not solely iraq, i believe it does include it.

[Nickygoat]

from this article about AQ recruits in the UK (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688261,00.html)


the article goes on to say that blair cites examples, as BTTM did, of non-iraq-related terrorist acts, then concludes that iraq is not the catalyst here (a bit of flawed logic, imo).

if the study's assessment is correct (it was "A joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier"), then the cause is simply the way the US and UK behave in muslim countries and against muslims. while that is not solely iraq, i believe it does include it.
I think you might be right - the added impetus for recruitment to these organisations is coming from Iraq and Afghanistan but that is not the only reason. Where I live (Bethnal Green) there is heavy recruiting for Hizb - ut -Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun. They're targeting these areas because they have a high population of unemployed kids, who've got involved with drugs and gangs and have lost the link with their original countries (Bangladesh, usually, in this area) and becoming more "Westernised". They're recruiting kids who are disillusioned with the life they have here and are unable to return to a traditional way of life. In short they're turning our decadence against us and offering a moral compass in life. It's a powerful combination. I read before the election that 8000 people were turning up for Hizb - ut -Tahrir's meetings.

[toontra]

Well, I have not been around in a while, but I have to chime up on this one.

First. The basis that all terror that is occurring is coming from us being in Iraq is complete BS. 9/11 was long before going into Iraq, so was the Cole, The first WTC attack, the beruit attack, the Riyad towers, Kenya, etc.....

In fact, I remember a certain pathetic act during the olympics when I was much younger. The bottom line is that there has to be a way to combat the terrorists (Freedom Fighters for Moxie). So, I will ask what I always ask. How do you do it if not with military force? Do you negotiate with them? Someone here please give me one viable alternative to military action.

I just wish that people would understand that we are fighting them on their soil so that we don't have to fight them on ours. Is that fair to the Iraqi's. No. Absolutely not. But that is what we are doing. Do I think this war is legal? Yes, Just, no. The right thing, Yes. Ever going to end, no. It is the most perfectly flawed response but the only alternative that we had.

Does that make sense, I did I just loose everyone.

Hah, good to see the old faces from 2003 back here again.

While I agree with much of what you say, you make the all-too-common error of linking pre-invasion Iraq with terrorism. It wasn't, despite Bush's constant attempts to convey the contrary, involved in any of the terrorist attacks you mentioned, so why imply otherwise - it weakens your argument greatly.

IMO the invasion of Iraq, leaving the legality and morality aside, was a big mistake for two reasons:

1) It deflected attention and resources away from the hunt for the real terrorists behind 9/11

2) It has actually encouraged and bred terrorism in Iraq and other Muslim communities, possibly even within the UK.

While there is no direct evidence that the invasion has encouraged terrorist attacks, the facts suggest that things are getting worse, not better, and with no end in sight. To my mind that is a failure on any terms.

[mactastic]

Shoot, the US military's all-volunteer force existed before 9/11 right? But didn't those events inspire many of our youth to join up in a patriotic gesture? Wasn't there a swell of military recruits (including the ill-fated Pat Tillman) who, if asked, would tell you that they joined because of the horror of 9/11?

Why would their youth be any different? What if 'the horror' that drove them went on, day after day?

Someone here please give me one viable alternative to military action.
I say we offer them therapy! :p

[Backtothemac]

HEY! Good to see you all again. My point isn't that Iraq is the end all of end all. Nor am I even going to go down the "Iraq was behind 9/11 crap". No, they had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam did support terror in the middle east. Now, my point is that this war has been going on since the 72 Olympics. It has progressed. Every attack has gotten more high profile. They want us to fight them. They don't want us to just let them get away with it.

I like the idea of therapy for them, but is there any real alternative other than military action? I understand the perception that the US bully's the middle east countries. However, Prior to the first gulf war, when did we invade, and occupy any country there?

There is a slippery slope, and I think we have passed it. We probably should have passed it a long time ago, but reality is that we are in this war, whether we caused it, or are right, that is for history to decide much later. The only to do now is win it. But can it be won? I don't think there will ever be an end to this war. Not Iraq, we will be out of there in another year or 18 months. But, the war on terror, the larger view. I think is unwinable.

[mactastic]

HEY! Good to see you all again. My point isn't that Iraq is the end all of end all. Nor am I even going to go down the "Iraq was behind 9/11 crap". No, they had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam did support terror in the middle east. Now, my point is that this war has been going on since the 72 Olympics. It has progressed. Every attack has gotten more high profile. They want us to fight them. They don't want us to just let them get away with it.

Shoot, this war's been going on since before the Crusades. It's not a new thing.

I like the idea of therapy for them, but is there any real alternative other than military action? I understand the perception that the US bully's the middle east countries. However, Prior to the first gulf war, when did we invade, and occupy any country there?
I was kidding about the therapy. I guess you haven't seen Karl Rove's latest slander of anything liberal.

You don't have to invade and occupy to be a bully. Look at the history of our dealings with the Saudis, the Iranians, the Afghanis. Lot's of 'our way or the highway' stuff. Heck, if we'd kept our promise to the Afghans in the first place (after we used them to fight a proxy war against the Soviets) we wouldn't have had a terrorist haven there to spawn the 9/11 attacks.

There is a slippery slope, and I think we have passed it. We probably should have passed it a long time ago, but reality is that we are in this war, whether we caused it, or are right, that is for history to decide much later. The only to do now is win it. But can it be won? I don't think there will ever be an end to this war. Not Iraq, we will be out of there in another year or 18 months. But, the war on terror, the larger view. I think is unwinable.
Hearts and minds my friend. And those aren't won by bombing alone. We did more to help our image in the Muslim world after the tsunami disaster than our entire WoT effort. Yes some will call me an appeaser, or a traitor, but I tell you now that this will require some concessions from both sides to finally end overt violence against western interests. It will take determined police efforts against the small groups who plot against us. It will take military strikes against some others. It will take anti-poverty steps. It will take painful measures on our part like stopping support for corrupt regimes. Ultimately it will take a recognition that the people there are not that different from the people here.

[skunk]

HEY! Good to see you all again.You too, B2M.
My point isn't that Iraq is the end all of end all. Nor am I even going to go down the "Iraq was behind 9/11 crap". No, they had nothing to do with 9/11. However, Saddam did support terror in the middle east.He allegedly gave support to the families of suicide bombers after the event. Not the same thing at all. Think of it as a War Widow's Pension. A good enough reason to bomb them to hell? I don't think so.
Now, my point is that this war has been going on since the 72 Olympics. It has progressed. Every attack has gotten more high profile. They want us to fight them. They don't want us to just let them get away with it.The "war" against the Palestinians has been going on since 1948. How much more "high profile" can you get than dispossessing an entire population, stealing their land and killing their children? Of course they don't want us to fight them, any more than your colonists wanted us to in 1773. They want us to stop screwing them. They want us to stop supporting illegal occupations of Arab lands, as in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, by extension, building political and/or military bases in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and Egypt.

I like the idea of therapy for them, but is there any real alternative other than military action? I understand the perception that the US bully's the middle east countries. However, Prior to the first gulf war, when did we invade, and occupy any country there?Iran (1952) through our proxy the Shah, aided by the CIA and British SIS; southern Lebanon, through your Israeli and Falangist proxies; Saudi Arabia, through ARAMCO and a compliant House of Fraud. There are a few legitimate grievances, any of which - were the boot on the other foot - would be seen as ample reason for any of our "civilized" populations to take up arms.
There is a slippery slope, and I think we have passed it. We probably should have passed it a long time ago, but reality is that we are in this war, whether we caused it, or are right, that is for history to decide much later. The only to do now is win it. But can it be won? I don't think there will ever be an end to this war. Not Iraq, we will be out of there in another year or 18 months. But, the war on terror, the larger view. I think is unwinable.We chose this route. Don't dignify it with the title of "war". It's a shameful, racist, immoral, unscrupulous and cynical imperialist adventure which has gone badly wrong. It will take humility and great diplomatic skill to extricate ourselves, and we will all be paying the price for years to come.

[solvs]

The basis that all terror that is occuring is coming from us being in Iraq is complete BS.
Maybe, but it certainly can't be helping. It isn't exactly doing wonders for moral or unity here either. The very fact that we're still there is enough to make people think things aren't going so well. And it's not getting any better.

Nor am I even going to go down the "Iraq was behind 9/11 crap". No, they had nothing to do with 9/11.
Good, because then you would have negated the rest of your arguement. Which would have been unfortunate, since most of us actually would agree with most of what you said. It's just the finer points that we disagree with. And if we had done a better job there, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

[takao]

(haven't read though the whole thread.. were sick 2 days and haven't simply found neither the time or patience)

1.hardly anybody i talked to was surprised about the attack, anybody thought it was just a matter of time after madrid

2. the interest have rapidly decreased compared to madrid or new york, .. it kinda looks like terroristic attacks seem to get something normal to hear about...

[takao]

about the "war on terror"

looking at the statistics of the last years it seems that that it isn't that successful.. i wonder what 'genius' came up with calling it a war in the first place.. that was like playing into the terrorists hands, giving them exactly what they wanted

but that that doesn't matter anymore now were stuck with more terrorists than perhaps ever before ...

[zimv20]

link (http://nytimes.com/2005/07/12/international/12cnd_BOMBINGS.html?hp&ex=1121227200&en=dcb4f3470bffa2bb&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


LONDON, July 12 - Authorities announced today that police had raided five homes in the northern city of Leeds and said the action was "directly connected" to last Thursday's terrorist bombings of subway trains and a bus.

The raids, which started at around 6.30 a.m., come five days after terrorists detonated four bombs during the morning rush-hour on July 7, killing at least 52 people and leaving hundreds more injured in London's worst day of terror in decades.

There were no immediate reports of arrests.

(more)

police work instead of military action. good one, brits.

during my last night in hackney (that would be the 10th), there was a great hubbub somewhere in the east end (bethnal green / london fields, it seemed to me). several helicopters hovering, sounds of sirens. it was about 2 am and lasted about 15 minutes. i'd wondered at the time if there was a police raid connected to the bombings going on, but i found nothing in the news afterwards.

[iGav]

several helicopters hovering, sounds of sirens. it was about 2 am and lasted about 15 minutes. i'd wondered at the time if there was a police raid connected to the bombings going on, but i found nothing in the news afterwards.

That type of thing isn't all that uncommon in the East End... might have been something as 'trivial' as joyriders or a burglary.

[zimv20]

That type of thing isn't all that uncommon in the East End... might have been something as 'trivial' as joyriders or a burglary.
so why do i want to live there?

[skunk]

so why do i want to live there?It's probably the joyriding...
;)

[iGav]

so why do i want to live there?

Probably because it's by far and away the most culturally diverse and vibrant part of London.

I want to move back out East. ;)

[zimv20]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050711/tc_nm/security_cellphones_dc)


Cell phone links disabled in New York tunnels

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cellular phone service has been shut off in four busy New York commuter tunnels since last week's deadly blasts in London, officials said on Monday.

No specific reason was given for the move but cell phones have been used to trigger bombs in the past.

Cell phone service is disabled in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels that connect Manhattan to New Jersey under the Hudson River, the Midtown Tunnel to the city's Queens borough and the Battery Tunnel to Brooklyn, officials said.

The move came immediately after the bombings in London on Thursday, said a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees operation of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.

(more)

so much for the rhetoric about not changing our lifestyle. i'm all for adapting, but can we for a change do something proactive and positive, instead of reactionary and defensive?

[zimv20]

Probably because it's by far and away the most culturally diverse and vibrant part of London.

yeah, that might be it. and i'm told that it's no longer cheaper to buy property in the east end. and i still want to do it.

[zimv20]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_re_eu/britain_suicide_bombers)


LEEDS, England - Shahzad Tanweer, the 22-year-old son of a Pakistani-born affluent businessman, turned to Islam, the religion of his birth, a few years ago. The transformation was gradual, but then his relentless reading of the Quran and daily prayers became almost an obsession, his friends told The Associated Press. He became withdrawn and increasingly angry over the war in Iraq, according to those who knew him best.

The U.S.-led war was what likely drove him to blow himself up on a subway train last week, said his friends.

"He was a Muslim and he had to fight for Islam. This is called jihad," or holy war, said Asif Iqbal, 20, who said he was Tanweer's childhood friend.

Another friend, Adnan Samir, 21, nodded in agreement.

"They're crying over 50 people while 100 people are dying every day in Iraq and Palestine," said Iqbal. "If they are indeed the ones who did it, it's because they believed it was right. They're in Heaven.

"Have you ever been inspired in life?" he asked.

(more)

[zimv20]

link (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=was%2dit%2dsuicide%2d%2d-name_page.html)


EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?

THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden.

Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately.

A security source said: "If the bombers lived and were caught they'd probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not."

The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry "Allah Akhbar!" - "God is great" - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.

Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.

Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again.

Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.

Additionally, two of the bombers had strong personal reasons for staying alive.

Jermaine Lindsay's partner Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, mother of his one-year-old son, is expecting her second baby within days. Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife Hasina, mum of a 14-month-old daughter, is also pregnant.

Our source disclosed: "The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link.

"We think it's possible they were told that when they pressed buttons to set off timers they'd have a short time to abandon the bombs and get away before the blast. Instead, the bombs exploded immediately."

Another intelligence source added: "Whoever is behind this didn't want to waste their best operatives on a suicide mission. Instead they used easily recruited low-grade men who may have believed they'd walk away."

(more)

[skunk]

I find it hard to feel pity for them.

[IJ Reilly]

Nonetheless, the thought had crossed my mind. If true, it suggests a different modus operandi than what we've been accustomed to seeing.

[zimv20]

If true, it suggests a different modus operandi than what we've been accustomed to seeing.
and one which may put a damper on future AQ recruiting efforts. seems like a pretty dumb mistake to me. or perhaps it's misinformation?

[Ugg]

and one which may put a damper on future AQ recruiting efforts. seems like a pretty dumb mistake to me. or perhaps it's misinformation?

Yeah, if they can prove that the four had no idea that they were going to be blown up, I would think it would put a serious damper on recruitment. My question, if it is true, is it a sign of ruthlessnes or the fact that recruitment is already down? Although, there were some suggestions that some of the 19 involved in 9-11 had no prior knowledge...

The Arab world seems to have lost some of its taste for jihads against the west according to the most recent Pew poll. This might suggest that recruiters are having a more difficult time.

[zimv20]

The Arab world seems to have lost some of its taste for jihads against the west according to the most recent Pew poll.
let's see it!

[IJ Reilly]

and one which may put a damper on future AQ recruiting efforts. seems like a pretty dumb mistake to me. or perhaps it's misinformation?

We'll see I suppose. The question of the moment seems to be how it could happen that four young, British-born men could be turned into suicide bombers. If that turns out to be the case, then this brand of terrorism becomes all the more frightening -- something which can't be controlled at the borders of any country. Quite possibly, this is the message the organizers were trying to send with this attack, but it's also quite possible that they weren't able to find four willing victims.

More to come, I'm sure.

[skunk]

We'll see I suppose. The question of the moment seems to be how it could happen that four young, British-born men could be turned into suicide bombers. If that turns out to be the case, then this brand of terrorism becomes all the more frightening -- something which can't be controlled at the borders of any country. Quite possibly, this is the message the organizers were trying to send with this attack, but it's also quite possible that they weren't able to find four willing victims.

More to come, I'm sure.Of course, it's not just four: there's Richard Reid and his mate, and those two blokes who went to Israel to blow themselves up. Add to that the news that the explosives were home-made from easily available over-the-counter ingredients, and there's nothing much you can do to secure anything.

[mactastic]

Nonetheless, the thought had crossed my mind. If true, it suggests a different modus operandi than what we've been accustomed to seeing.
IIRC, this is not a new development in terrorism. There have been more than one documented cases so far of unwitting suicide bombers in both Iraq and Palestine/Israel.

Hasn't seemed to hurt their recruitment ability there. That's part of the lie. "Oh no, you're to valuable to send on a martyrdom mission."

[IJ Reilly]

Of course, it's not just four: there's Richard Reid and his mate, and those two blokes who went to Israel to blow themselves up.

All of those attacks were directed against countries not their own. Not too subtle a point, I hope.

[skunk]

All of those attacks were directed against countries not their own. Not too subtle a point, I hope.I do realize the difference, yes. My point was that we should have been aware that "suicide bomber" does not necessarily equal "foreigner" for a while now. We just did not want to believe it.

[IJ Reilly]

I do realize the difference, yes. My point was that we should have been aware that "suicide bomber" does not necessarily equal "foreigner" for a while now. We just did not want to believe it.

Granted, but I'm attempting to interpret the paranoid message we were supposed to receive from this event, which is that anybody could be the next suicide bomber, including your native-born next-door neighbor. Any given Muslim could be a jihadist. This leads inevitably to the bunker mentality of the Israelis. Consequently, I believe the Islamic radicals would very much like the idea of young, British-born kids blowing themselves up for the cause on the Underground because then Britain starts looking more like the Middle East -- which is their objective, right?

The question is whether it's true.

[mactastic]

...because then Britain starts looking more like the Middle East...

Speaking of which, it's been a particularly deadly (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8597017/) weekend in Iraq. So for all the people who like to tell us that we're just focusing on the bad news, how is it that we wring our hands and declare that we are all Britons when they lose half the number that Baghdad does in a 24 hour period? How is it that I am only focusing on the bad news when a bad weekend in Iraq is twice as bloody as the worst day Britain has seen since WWII, and it gets a mention and then will fade away?

Sorry for the rant, and I don't mean in any way to demean what happened in London.

[skunk]

Sorry for the rant, and I don't mean in any way to demean what happened in London.Oh, I absolutely agree. In case you hadn't noticed...

And I see your point, IJ. It's well made. George and Tony obviously haven't read the Art of War.

[takao]

the rate in which terror attacks are coming in is simply astonishing .. especially the last few days ... when was the last time there were so many attacks within such a short period time in so many different countries ? ( the PKK denied that they were responsible for the attack in turkey)

[skunk]

It is getting rather out of hand. :(
But what sickens me is our pious PM mouthing off about "evil ideology":
On Saturday, Tony Blair said it was time to stand up to the "evil ideology" behind the London bombings and other attacks.

He said such violence was not a response to any particular policy or injustice, but was a "fanaticism" that had to be confronted.This from a man who took his country to war on a pack of lies. I really would like to be able to think that there is a clear difference here, but I can't see it. Fathers, mothers, sons and daughters are being killed, all because George Bush and Tony Blair thought they had a Date with Destiny.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691547.stm

[toontra]

Going back to the first page of this thread, an independent think tank has now concluded the invasion of Iraq and UK foreign policy ties with the US has indeed made us a far bigger target for terrorists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1530817,00.html

This has always seemed like stating the bleedin' obvious to me but Blair has denied it so vehemently and with such moral indignity that it's good at last to get at least a bit of balance on this.

[solvs]

Was there any doubt this was about Iraq? I'm sure supporters of the war will refute that, but there it is.

[toontra]

Was there any doubt this was about Iraq?

Not in my mind (at least in part). However no-one was prepared to say this (except George Gallaway) - even politicians opposed to the war denounced any such idea, presumably for fear of being branded anti-patriotic or soft on terrorism.

It appears that in this "war on terrorism", truth is once again the first victim. Everyone is happy to spout jingoistic nonsense in the knowledge that a complicity of fake morality will save their ridiculous arguments from scrutiny.

[skunk]

Was there any doubt this was about Iraq? I'm sure supporters of the war will refute that, but there it is.No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. It's because they HATE OUR FREEDOM to trample over their country, their people, their resources and their religion.

[zimv20]

from today's CNN Quickvote, which i found here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/16/london.attacks/index.html):


Do you agree with UK PM Tony Blair that the London bombings were driven by "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy?

Yes: 72%
No: 28%

Total votes: 25,687

[skunk]

from today's CNN Quickvote, which i found here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/16/london.attacks/index.html):I'd be interested to see if the British public are as gullible.

[toontra]

I'd be interested to see if the British public are as gullible.

Apparently not! A poll on tonight's BBC2 Newsnight shows that over 60% of Brits think that the Iraq invasion has been responsible for an increased terrorist threat.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531387,00.html

[miloblithe]

Was there any doubt this was about Iraq? I'm sure supporters of the war will refute that, but there it is.

It's interesting how people tend to be monological. While I have no doubt that this is at least in part about Iraq, I also don't think that it's exclusively about Iraq. I don't think you mean to say that it is either. I'm arguing about phrasing, to a degree, perhaps. But I think it's important. Diffinitive statements leave more open avenues to criticism and endless political posturing.

[zimv20]

Was there any doubt this was about Iraq? I'm sure supporters of the war will refute that, but there it is.
have a look here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=138520).

[Lau]

I'd be interested to see if the British public are as gullible.

I'm not sure the wording of this poll is as clear as it could be. "Do you agree with UK PM Tony Blair that the London bombings were driven by "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy?".

For example: even if someone thought that the war was what makes people angry enough to consider something like this, the "evil ideology" is what makes people crazy enough to actually go through with it.

A poll that says "Did the war make people want to blow stuff up" is a lot clearer.

Just a thought....

[solvs]

Diffinitive statements leave more open avenues to criticism and endless political posturing.
I wrote this big long post where I brought up a lot of those points. But then I erased it all except for that part. This happened because of Iraq. Not saying it's right (it isn't), but that's just the way it is.

I stand by what I said.

[blackfox]

You know, not to make light of the grave nature of the situation that unfolded in London, or that of terrorism in general, but I noticed (once again), that these people are kids. 19, 20, 21 and so forth. Not exactly the model of enlightened, rational thinking. I was most definitely a hot-headed idiot from time to time...often over a trumped-up instance.

It gives me pause to think what might happen if our youth was pushed to that level of dissatisfaction/disenfranchisment because they felt marginalized/were unable to provide for themselves or family, or because they could no longeer drive an SUV and splurge on a double-vanilla latte (joke).

Which(joke not withstanding), makes me think about the long-term social costs of this drawn-out occupation in the ME, with so many kids exposed to such horrible circumstances, on both sides.

[amnesiac1984]

Well, it's happened again, although thankfully the attacks kind of failed this time.

[mactastic]

And again... (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=67287&d=21&m=7&y=2005)

But I'm guessing this one won't get much airtime in the US what with the near-fatal wounding of some British folks, the Supreme announcement, and the Rove scandal.

Over a dozen more people lost their lives in Iraq yesterday, including eight killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside the gates of an army recruiting center in Baghdad, the latest attack against the country’s security forces.

...

As Iraq remembered the dead from some of the worst bombings of a recent frenzy, rebels continued their attacks, with eight killed in the army recruiting center bombing and another seven in attacks elsewhere.

“I was standing opposite the entrance to the base, near the park, where those wanting to join up are expected to wait as a safety measure, when a fat young man wearing a gray T-shirt called out for everyone to come forward to answer questions on how the center worked,” said Rahim Ashuan, one of the would-be recruits.
Again, not to minimize the British experience - which is indeed horrible, but when it happens to Iraqis we don't seem to care much.

[zimv20]

from here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4704003.stm):

Bus company Stagecoach spokesman Steve Stewart said a Number 26 bus travelling from Waterloo to Hackney had just entered Hackney Road when the driver heard a bang from the top deck.
yikes, that's the bus line i rode most often while i was there.