The Right Message

skunk

macrumors G4
Original poster
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
As little as I agree with Blair's choice in Iraq, I do think this is an admirably balanced view which the NeoCons should learn by heart before they open their deceitful mouths again:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks.blair.ap/index.html/

Blair: Address terrorism causes

LONDON, England (AP) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Thursday's bomb attacks on London demonstrate the pressing need for world leaders to tackle problems like poverty, he told BBC radio.

He said leaders had taken on some of those issues at the G8 summit of the world's wealthy nations in Scotland this week.

"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots," Blair said. "As well as dealing with the consequences of this -- trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can -- you have to try to pull it up by its roots," he said.

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.

"Ultimately what we now know, if we didn't before, is that where there is extremism, fanaticism or acute and appalling forms of poverty in one continent, the consequences no longer stay fixed in that continent, they spread to the rest of the world" said Blair.

The prime minister also said he had been deeply impressed by the calm way Londoners reacted to the bombings of three subways and a bus.

"The British have a very great inner resilience and the response of people in London has been extraordinary," he said. "Several of the leaders at the summit commented to me how remarkable the British people are that they are simply not going to be terrorized by terror in this way."

"I think that we will continue with our way of life, I genuinely believe that," he said. "Even as we mourn the lives of those people killed so brutally and unnecessarily, the sense, I think, and I hope, within the country, is to pull together and to make sure people can't divide us."​
Why don't we hear any US spokesmen saying this? Note the absence of references to saturation bombing and revenge...
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Original poster
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
Speaking of "telling it like it is".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665133.stm
UK policy invited attacks - Iran

Iran has condemned the bomb attacks in London as inhumane, and offered its condolences to the victims.
But one of the country's top clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Emami-Kashani, said they were the direct result of the UK's support for US and Israeli policies.

The ayatollah called al-Qaeda an "illegitimate child" of the West.

The Friday prayer leader said it was divine justice that a group which had nothing to do with Islam had now conspired against its backers.

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says Iran's view is that US funding for extremist Sunni Muslim groups opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s set the stage for the emergence of the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

Stinging attack

A commentary on Iranian state radio, meanwhile, blamed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, for the attacks.

This savagery is not Islam - it is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you
Ayatollah Emami-Kashani
It said Mossad was the only group capable of carrying out such operations in London and had often tried to attract attention to its opponents during G8 meetings in the past.

Ayatollah Kashani condemned the blasts, but also launched a stinging attack on Western foreign policy, punctuated with cries of "death to America, Britain and Israel".

"You talk about al-Qaeda. Have you forgotten who has bred al-Qaeda?" he asked, in remarks addressed to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"It's the illegitimate child of America and Israel, but you name it Islam. This savagery is not Islam. It is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you."

'Change your ways'

He said the West had also nurtured former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by supplying him with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

"You armed Saddam with every weapon against us," he said. "But your feet are still bogged down in the Iraqi quagmires and you cannot get out."

He also attacked US George W Bush's war on terror and Middle East policies.

"Where have you reached by cracking down on terrorism? It has happened again because you do not want to use your head."

"You train terrorists and state terrorism. If you want to succeed you have to leave Palestine alone," he added.

"Acting against terrorism must be honest ... and you will not succeed unless you wise up and change your ways."​
 

Desertrat

macrumors newbie
Jul 4, 2003
2
706
Terlingua, Texas
Yeah, blame poverty. But then wonder why is it that the leaders of the hate-the-west are among their highest educated and richest. They are the ones who make use of the poverty-stricken as foot-soldiers in this terrorism.

I have read that the total export value of all the mideastern Islamic countries is barely equal to that of Finland--except for oil. That's not the fault of the west. They're no different from Mexico, insofar as their own internal socio-economic systems do not create a way for the poor to bootstrap themselves upward into what we in the US consider a middle economic class.

'Rat
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Desertrat said:
Yeah, blame poverty. But then wonder why is it that the leaders of the hate-the-west are among their highest educated and richest. They are the ones who make use of the poverty-stricken as foot-soldiers in this terrorism.

I have read that the total export value of all the mideastern Islamic countries is barely equal to that of Finland--except for oil. That's not the fault of the west. They're no different from Mexico, insofar as their own internal socio-economic systems do not create a way for the poor to bootstrap themselves upward into what we in the US consider a middle economic class.

'Rat
No, it's not the fault of the West. We do, however; exploit the way in which those leaders exploit their own people. You have to admit that one of our cold war strategies was to play one Arab country off another to keep them from joining forces against us. Our country is more than willing to let our corporations trade with, and prop up, these very same corrupt governments you are rightly complaining about.

There's plenty of blame to go 'round. Question is, how do we convince them to hate us less?
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
The nineteen 9/11 hijackers didn't seem poor to me - they seemed like middle class Saudi citizens. And anyway, we don't have to speculate about why we hate us - bin Laden already said why in many of his tapes. It's because we support Israel, the Saudis, Pakistan, and other secular and regimes in the middle east and asia.

What he didn't say is that the reason we support regimes like that is to prevent people like him from taking over the muslim countries and turning them into the same hell on earth that Afghanistan was.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Original poster
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
tristan said:
It's because we support Israel, the Saudis, Pakistan, and other secular and regimes in the middle east and asia.

What he didn't say is that the reason we support regimes like that is to prevent people like him from taking over the muslim countries and turning them into the same hell on earth that Afghanistan was.
Right. They're just a different hell on earth. "It may be hell on earth, but it's our hell on earth".
 

Inspector Lee

macrumors 6502a
Jan 24, 2004
590
0
East Lansing, MI
Ugg said:
Oil corrupts.
Yeah, that is why the US is/was so hot-in-the-crotch about Venezuela. When you're the 5th largest oil exporter and you want to increase your royalty cut from 16%-30+%, you're gonna cause the US oil execs to choke on their chateaubriand. So what do they do about it? Try a coup - check. Recall effort - check. Elimination is now the only viable option. The people here have already been sensitized to it. Whenever US administrations (democrat or republican) fall out of favor with South American guvments, you'll notice a lot of C-word dropping in the papes. The C-word of course is Castro. I mean, what is the propaganda machine here gonna do when this guy bites it? Admins and newspapers have gotten more mileage out of Castro then a coked up Segway operator - "Ohh, he used to booze it with Castro" or "old buddy Castro."

All the more reason to go to an alternative energy source. Let everyone else fight over the last drop. The cable giants here could set up a pay-per-view of the last days. Capture all the donnybrooking, the knees to the face, the open-hand neck chops, etc. Ratings would go through the roof...
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Desertrat said:
Yeah, blame poverty. But then wonder why is it that the leaders of the hate-the-west are among their highest educated and richest.
Our leaders are among the richest and highest educated. Isn't helping us any. Not saying it's right. Just something to think about. But, you know, I'm sure they just hate our freedom.
 
Article said:
Blair: Address terrorism causes

LONDON, England (AP) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair said it is crucial to address terrorism's underlying causes, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
Lack of democracy and Middle East conflict? I didn't realize those were necessary components of terrorism. Someone should have told Timothy McVeigh.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
skunk said:
Was he a terrorist?
Most definetly. And a Christian one to boot, but you won't hear too many people play up his particular brand of Christianity and how that factors into his act of terror. But you'll hear all about how Islam makes people into terrorists. :rolleyes:
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Original poster
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,991
Republic of Ukistan
anonymous161 said:
Well, what would you call him. Killing 168 people with a truck bomb counts in my book.
Death= check
Destruction= check
Terror= check
Isn't there a different word for someone who just blows up a building? Surely a terrorist uses terror. Didn't he just want to blow up a building and kill as many federal employees as possible? I'm sorry if I'm being a bit pedantic - it's happened before - but it seems to me that Oklahoma was different. "Terrorist" doesn't really fit, does it? Seems to me the term is becoming less meaningful as it becomes a portmanteau word for anyone not in uniform.
 
skunk said:
Isn't there a different word for someone who just blows up a building? Surely a terrorist uses terror. Didn't he just want to blow up a building and kill as many federal employees as possible? I'm sorry if I'm being a bit pedantic - it's happened before - but it seems to me that Oklahoma was different. "Terrorist" doesn't really fit, does it? Seems to me the term is becoming less meaningful as it becomes a portmanteau word for anyone not in uniform.
I agree, the word is abused more than "insurgents."

Dictionary.com said:
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Link


The way I read this, I feel that he was a terrorist. He destroyed a federal building for political/ideological reasons with the intent to spread fear and panic. It was a long time ago, but I remember fear and terror, especially where I live, 90 miles away. I am fairly sure the rest of the US was shook up by this as well. Since he was captured so quickly, we really have no idea what his future plans were, but he was connected to groups of people with similar ideology. I don't think you would be stretching the definition too far to include him.
My original comment was that terrorists are not middle eastern and can come from "democratic" nations. I thought it was a rather narrow and even racist remark from Mr Blair, but perhaps he was referring specifically to "terrorism centered in the Middle East"
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
skunk said:
As little as I agree with Blair's choice in Iraq, I do think this is an admirably balanced view which the NeoCons should learn by heart before they open their deceitful mouths again:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.attacks.blair.ap/index.html/

Why don't we hear any US spokesmen saying this? Note the absence of references to saturation bombing and revenge...
I was never a proponent of the US/UK's actions in Iraq. From the speeches I've heard, Tony Blair seems to be a talented speaker. Although there is still some of the typical political propaganda mixed in Blair's messages are much more rational than what American's hear from the Bush administration.

All we get is a confused mixture of catch phrases that have little meaning. “Spreading freedom and democracy, destroying evil regimes, stay the course, they hate us because of our freedom... blah, blah blah.” We heard no apology for the massive intelligence failure that was the basis for our attack on Iraq. Apparently, nobody in our government is accountable for such gross errors. The part that really amazes me is how the media and vast majority of American citizens are not outraged by this obvious lack of accountability.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Still just words. Actions speak louder. What good are pretty words when what actually happens turns out to be such a mess? Bush has said some nice things too.