# Yes, Islamist terror rides again--this time in London



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html

But I suppose now the apologists will say it is imperialism. And I am just a bigot.

Just keep on putting the heads in the sand.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
> 
> But I suppose now the apologists will say it is imperialism. And I am just a bigot.
> 
> Just keep on putting the heads in the sand.


I'd say that this post is pretty inflammatory too.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Yes, purposefully inflammatory so people get the point that this is nothing to wave off like they did when I brought it up the other day. The threat is real, international not just some concoction of the Bush administration. Take Islamism seriously instead of dismissing it as an understandable, if quaint, response to some real or imagined slights from a foreign power.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

Every article I've read so far (Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, BBC) says the authorities do not know who is responsible at this time.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ct77 said:


> Every article I've read so far (Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, BBC) says the authorities do not know who is responsible at this time.


If I am wrong that this is the Islamists then I will publicly retract and apologize for it., and never post again on ehMac.

Unfortunately, I already know by the details that it is the work of the Islamofascists. I expect my prediction will be proven soon.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Yes, purposefully inflammatory so people get the point that this is nothing to wave off like they did when I brought it up the other day. The threat is real, international not just some concoction of the Bush administration. Take Islamism seriously instead of dismissing it as an understandable, if quaint, response to some real or imagined slights from a foreign power.


No one's waved off the threat from Islamic terrorists and, if you think that, then you certainly do deserve to be abused. What posters have tried to do is to understand the mentality and motivations of the people behind the attacks. You simply think that doing so is excusing the attacks. Far from it, if you don't understand your enemy how do you expect to defeat them?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No one's waved off the threat from Islamic terrorists and, if you think that, then you certainly do deserve to be abused.


Anyone who claims that there will be no Islamist threat if we simply stop buying oil or occupying Iraq or do this or that, this is a person who does NOT take Islamism seriously as an ideology.

This is the Nazism of our time, and arguably worse--you cannot kill Allah like you could kill a secular regime.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Yes, purposefully inflammatory so people get the point that this is nothing to wave off like they did when I brought it up the other day.


Sounds like you're using the same tactics that the terrorists do in order to "wake the people up".


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Sounds like you're using the same tactics that the terrorists do in order to "wake the people up".


Oh, is that supposed to be bait?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oh, is that supposed to be bait?


Nope...just an observation.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Why not take a look at an example of the kind of noble democrats Islamist "freedom fighters" are: (this is translated by MEMRI, btw) 

Al-Zarqawi Denounces Democracy and Constitutionalism in Iraq

A week before the elections were to take place on January 30, 2005, Al-Zarqawi addressed the Iraqi people in a speech denouncing democracy and the elections as heresy. In the speech, delivered January 23 and posted on Islamist websites, Al-Zarqawi presented seven aspects of the heretical nature of democracy:

-In a democracy, legislative authority is performed by representatives who act as proxies for the people. As such, man must be obeyed, not Allah – which is "the very essence of heresy, polytheism, and error."
-Democracy allows freedom of religion, including the conversion to another religion. According to Islam, "if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed." He added that "One may not make a [peace] treaty with an apostate, nor grant him safe passage or protection."
-Democracy renders the people the ultimate source of sovereignty and the ultimate arbiter on conflicts. In Islam, Allah is the ultimate arbiter. Allah said: "And in whatever thing you disagree, the judgment thereof belongs to Allah [Koran 42:10]."
-"Freedom of expression" in democracy would allow the use of language that might be hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e., Allah]
-The principle of separation between religion and state means secularism and the restricting of Allah only to places of worship
-The principle of freedom of association ought to be rejected because it could allow membership in a heretical parties, which implies acquiescence in heresy
-The principle of the rule of majority is "totally wrong and void because truth according to Islam is that which is in accordance with the Koran and the Sunna [i.e., the tradition of the Prophet], whether its supporters are few or many."


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

planethoth said:


> This is the Nazism of our time, and arguably worse--you cannot kill Allah like you could kill a secular regime.


Actually the only Nazis that we have to worry about in our time are the ones running the White House right now.

and to get back on track do you have any proof that these were in fact Islamic terrorists, it could have been any number of terrorist groups including the IRA, do you know outside the middle east the UK has the largest number of terrorist organisations operating on its soil.

Laterz


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

K_OS said:


> do you have any proof that these were in fact Islamic terrorists,


I would also say that it's Islamic terrorists...specifically Al Qaeda given that this seems to be a coordinated series of attacks.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No one's waved off the threat from Islamic terrorists and, if you think that, then you certainly do deserve to be abused. What posters have tried to do is to understand the mentality and motivations of the people behind the attacks. You simply think that doing so is excusing the attacks. Far from it, if you don't understand your enemy how do you expect to defeat them?


IF, and only IF, the posters were truly trying to understand the mentality and motivations of the Islamists, I would have no quibble. Oil or no oil, Bush or not, U.S. or not, the Islamists will not go away. The roots of their ideology predate any shallow materialistic theories like those of the people that believe the Noam Chomsky bedtime story that capitalism 'caused' Islamism, or at any rate, gives them a good reason to be mad. They always have a reason to be mad at foreign 'infidels' and internal 'apostates'--it is inherent in their ideology and philosophy of the world.

Those people dead today, they could be you, remember that.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

IRA attacks are usually preceded by a warning and consist of one or two bombs... I can't remember them perpetrating a multiple bomb attack such as this one. Furthermore the situation in Northern Ireland is cooling off somewhat lately and the IRA is showing slightly more concern for civilians, even if only for PR reasons. That doesn't rule out an IRA splinter group but the coordinated nature of the attacks, the similarities to the Madrid bombings, and the fact it occured at the start of the G8 Summit all suggest Al Qaeda.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

K_OS said:


> Actually the only Nazis that we have to worry about in our time are the ones running the White House right now.
> 
> and to get back on track do you have any proof that these were in fact Islamic terrorists, it could have been any number of terrorist groups including the IRA, do you know outside the middle east the UK has the largest number of terrorist organisations operating on its soil.
> 
> Laterz


Oh sure. Bush might kill you. Don't worry about the Islamofascists... no worries, nothing to see here. Keep chanting your mantra.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

IronMac said:


> I would also say that it's Islamic terrorists...specifically Al Qaeda given that this seems to be a coordinated series of attacks.


When I 1st heard the news that's what I tought too but without some shread of evidence or somebody admiting to it we will never know who to pin this on.

Laterz


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> IF, and only IF, the posters were truly trying to understand the mentality and motivations of the Islamists, I would have no quibble.


Seems like you're calling people liars again.



planethoth said:


> Those people dead today, they could be you, remember that.


That sort of "specious" argument won't work with me since I don't fear death. It will happen one day sooner or later and you can't live in fear of that all the time can you?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

planethoth said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
> 
> But I suppose now the apologists will say it is imperialism. And I am just a bigot.
> 
> Just keep on putting the heads in the sand.


Give it a break.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Seems like you're calling people liars again.
> 
> 
> 
> That sort of "specious" argument won't work with me since I don't fear death. It will happen one day sooner or later and you can't live in fear of that all the time can you?


I didn't call anyone a liar this time. I am telling you I don't believe I saw a single poster that appeared to take the Islamism very seriously as a factor in the multiple conflicts across the globe where it seems to pop up.

OK you don't fear death, so then... what? Will you next say that it is Ok with you that people--maybe even you--are bombed on a bus or a subway car put there in the name of holy jihad? Does it not bother you any?


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

What is Islamism? Are you referring to all people who are a part of the Islam Faith? If so, then you'd better do your homework. True Islam is a very peaceful religion, there are extremist like terrorists of course, but some terroist claim to be Christian. I think it's important to study a believe before you start an argument like this. And I mean study the BELIEFS, not what you read in the paper or see on CNN which is nowhere close to what true Muslims believe. I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I've had the pleasure of speaking with many families who pray to Allah. Did I fear that I would be taken hostage or killed, no way, should I? Hardly. So please I hope you are not referring to an entire group of people because that is bigotry.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

kevs~just kevs said:


> What is Islamism? Are you referring to all people who are a part of the Islam Faith? If so, then you'd better do your homework. True Islam is a very peaceful religion, there are extremist like terrorists of course, but some terroist claim to be Christian. I think it's important to study a believe before you start an argument like this. And I mean study the BELIEFS, not what you read in the paper or see on CNN which is nowhere close to what true Muslims believe. I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I've had the pleasure of speaking with many families who pray to Allah. Did I fear that I would be taken hostage or killed, no way, should I? Hardly. So please I hope you are not referring to an entire group of people because that is bigotry.


You know very well that i mean Islamism, the aggressive political movement of fundamentalist Islam, and not Islam as a whole. This is a common term, even if imperfect, it still captures the essence of what this ideology is about. Islam is not Islamism, but Islam is not irrelevant to Islamism, either!

By the way, if you can point to a single group of terrorists that operate in this era for the expressed purpose of spreading Christianity by force, I will be surprised. Saying that there might be a terrorist who is Christian doesn't mean there is a "christianism" that rivals "islamism". And no, I am not a Christian.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

apparently a secret group called "Al Qaeda in London" has claimed responsibility.... just heard on the radio... 680 news...


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

planethoth said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/07/london.tube/index.html
> 
> But I suppose now the apologists will say it is imperialism. And I am just a bigot.
> 
> Just keep on putting the heads in the sand.


Like I said in the other thread....



> but please consider this an official call to chill. Let it go. If anyone can't let it go, they'll be given a week cooling off period.


*WHACK*







*WHACK* 

You now have 7 days to chill and Ice Cap in the nice summer weather.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

This is a horrible tradgedy... not a time to get all excited to use the events to support a viewpoint. 

Discuss the events, but let's stay off the snide bickering going on lately on ehMac. Doing so will land you a week off ehMac to chill out and enjoy an Ice Cap.


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

correction to my post.....

should be "Al Qaeda in Europe"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> This is a horrible tradgedy... not a time to get all excited to use the events to support a viewpoint.
> 
> Discuss the events, but let's stay off the snide bickering going on lately on ehMac. Doing so will land you a week off ehMac to chill out and enjoy an Ice Cap.


You have the patience of Job, Mr. Mayor.

If it was my call, I wouldn't be locking any more threads. I would simply lock out the problem. Permanently.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

K_OS wrote:


> do you know outside the middle east the UK has the largest number of terrorist organisations operating on its soil.


 With the exception, perhaps, of Miami...

M


----------



## dmpP (Jun 1, 2004)

If you ask me... the problem all starts with one of the large countries financing military groups outside of their control...

Ultimately, we (the global population) need to start to learn how to live together. Just because democracy works (if you can say that) in Canada, USA, England, etc., it doesn't mean that it's the best solution for other countries. Dictatorship may not be the best solution, however it might work in certain circumstances. I'm not a politics person... so don't ask me to outline what type of governance would work where.

All I'm saying is that we need to stop the bloodshed and get on with our own lives. We need to be able to treat eachother with dignity and respect others values. I don't care if you believe in Mohammed, Jesus, or any other g-d. I'm going to believe what I believe, and nothing you do is going to change that. I'm not going to try to force my beliefs on anyone else. I don't care if you date someone from another religion. I'm going to do what I want for myself, and I might not want what you want, but I won't rise up against you because of that choice.

Seriously, enough is enough... it's time that the hatred is removed from the global society.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

I can't get hold of any of my friends in London......all the phone lines are down.
and now I hear it's up to 45 dead.

not a good day


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Loafer said:


> I can't get hold of any of my friends in London......all the phone lines are down.
> and now I hear it's up to 45 dead.
> 
> not a good day



Try email and or send an SMS... reports are those networks are still working.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

just got word from one friend on e-mail......he's ok, just trying to get home now.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Loafer, good to hear that you heard from one friend. 

All lines of communication are going to be swamped right now, but people will get through to you as they can. Hang in there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Let us hope for the best for Moscool, a regular ehMacLander who is living in London, and for the safety of everyone else in London.

I was a bit disturbed at the title of this thread, since there is no word on who is responsible. It is like the reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing, which turned out to be two Americans.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

A group has claimed responsibility (mentioned earlier in this thread) but as we have seen from the past, thats not really conclusive (I believe groups have sometimes claimed responsibility, even when its not them).


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

planethoth said:


> By the way, if you can point to a single group of terrorists that operate in this era for the expressed purpose of spreading Christianity by force, I will be surprised. Saying that there might be a terrorist who is Christian doesn't mean there is a "christianism" that rivals "islamism". And no, I am not a Christian.


http://www.hvk.org/articles/0703/107.html
http://atheism.about.com/cs/christextremism/index.htm?terms=go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/01/2797.shtml
http://www.kkk.com/

The list goes on and on. 

I'm not fueling the fire.. just don't think someone won't search 

There are many views here.. it's time for it all to stop.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CN, when this thread was started, it was not even clear if it was an act of terrorism by an identified group. Thus, to blame an identifiable group of people prior to specific facts is, in my opinion, premature and irresponsible.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Ah, sorry Dr. G. I misunderstood your post (I realize now you were referring to the title). Sorry, should have read more closely  I agree, the title does seem a bit presumptuous, but perhaps the author had some source (you never know, but I wasn't aware of much info at that time).


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

plantetoth: Nice to see you're using this opportunity to climb back up on your soap box again. You must have been very happy to hear the news this morning. However, some of us just feel sad and sickened. This is horrible - no matter where it happens. All you're doing is rubbing salt into the wound. And, just in case you're wondering, this doesn't change my opinion about the war in Iraq. This incident should not, perhaps, be described as terrorism. Surely it is a consequence of declaring war on another nation?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Personally, had I started this thread (and I suspect many other would have too), it would have been a short sentence or two about what had happened, a link to the news article and an expression of sadness/horror/pick your emotion. 

But that is just me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> By the way, if you can point to a single group of terrorists that operate in this era for *the expressed purpose of spreading Christianity by force*, I will be surprised


THAT is a con job. There are a number of "Christian" groups that employ terror to their ends notably UDA and IRA, KKK, and there are others....and there are many examples of sectarian violence in most of the proselytizing religions. You cant just say "there are no violent Christian missionaries" and expect to make your point. 
The Phalangists in Lebanon are hardly clean handed nor are the Greek Cypriots.

You certainly couch your sociological discussions in absolutes like "evil", morality ( as if there is a particular absolute morality ) etc as opposed to terms like criminal or defective humans, sociopaths etc. so despite your claim on being "non-Christian" one would draw the conclusion of "religious mindset" from your phrasing and approach.

Using religion for political or geo-political ends is age old and disentangling the two is difficult in many situations.

Shining Path perhaps no or little religious entanglement and is an anti-repression / political ideology movement.


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Lets not allow this to turn into a flame war, I think that would only be disrespectful to all those affected by this tragedy. Maybe there were better ways to start this thread, maybe not, but if we could stick to discussing the events (at least in this thread) I think that might be most beneficial


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Let us focus on the sad, terrible news. Take the pissing match private.

From the BBC:


> A series of bomb attacks on London's transport network have killed more than 30 people and injured scores more.
> There were three explosions on the Underground - which police said left 33 dead - and one on a double-decker bus in which an unknown number died.
> 
> UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has returned to London from the G8 summit, has described the attack as "barbaric".
> ...


It was coordinated. Suicide bombers perhaps (easiest) or planted bombs (sounds too complicated). 
There will be many questions, but really, in the city the size of London, is it really possible to defend against something like this? Not unless you turn it into a police state. The same thing still happens in states with fewer personal freedoms.

One wonders what the retaliation will be.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Carex said:


> One wonders what the retaliation will be.


Definitely, I hope it's something smart. The last thing anyone wants is more bombs. Hopefully, these criminals will be apprehended and punished in a noble way.

Bombs lead to more bombs.. and that is NEVER good. Personally, I am hoping this will be handled with care.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

It's sad in a way because it gives Bush/Blair ammunition to continue their "War on Terror" when in reality it's their foreign policies which should be addressed.

All friends safe and accounted for.
I heard one of my friends brother was 3 tube trains ahead of one that was bombed. Scarey stuff!
My other friend was originally scheduled to be in London this morning, but his meeting was re-scheduled earlier in the week.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Loafer--good to hear your friends all are safe and accounted for.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Loafer said:


> It's sad in a way because it gives Bush/Blair ammunition to continue their "War on Terror" when in reality it's their foreign policies which should be addressed.


And this where both sides of the conflict plays into the hands of the others. The problem spirals out of control and neither side wins. It is clear that intolerance, fear mongering and stupidity are qualities that both sides of this conflict possess.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Loafers friends are safe. I hope Moscool checks in as well. 

It is like spinning a basketball on your finger, when it slows down you need to use your hand to add momentum. The attack will be the thing that keeps the basketball going. Does Blair have any targets left? Perhaps he will look internally at security and civil liberties. If so, the bomb planters have won in a way.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

i'd like to respectfully ask mr mayor or mr hoth to please change the title of this thread, out of respect for the dead and wounded. it makes me sick that someone would use an event like this to push his propaganda on us.

on a side note, this is the second tragdey at king's cross station, which was also the location of a deadly fire back in 1987.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tell me why the hue and cry for London and not for this??



> *Afghan Government Condemns U.S. Air Raid That Killed Civilians*
> 
> By CARLOTTA GALL
> Published: July 6, 2005
> KABUL, Afghanistan, July 5 - Afghanistan's government condemned the United States military on Tuesday for *a recent airstrike that killed as many as 17 civilians in the northeastern province of Kunar.*


It's hardly a "pissing match" to condemn the "west is the best".....evil Islam...good Christians attitude.

BOTH these events are part of a conflict in which BOTH sides have bloody hands.

Cry for both if you will but don't ask me to ignore the wider picture when the West is wringing it's hands while the killing of Afghanis is just another war day..


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Carex said:


> Let us focus on the sad, terrible news. Take the pissing match private.
> 
> From the BBC:
> It was coordinated. Suicide bombers perhaps (easiest) or planted bombs (sounds too complicated).
> ...


The UK has already been turning into a Police state over the last 10 years or so.
You are monitored pretty much 24/7 by the huge amount of CCTV cameras (not only in the big cities), the Police have powers to hold you indefinately, they have the ability to take your passport away if you are a perceived threat, even if you have done nothing wrong. 

I remember once being stopped by the police and searched because I was laughing as I walked past......trust me when you are inconvenienced by something like this on unreasonable grounds you start to wonder what where things are heading. 

Do we need to be more secure or do we need to ask questions as to why people want to do this to us. Me, I prefer the latter.

How many countries are there in the world that aren't targets for Islamic terrorists.....why not ? Because they don't go round medalling in other countries affairs for their own good under the pretence of 'peace'.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Interesting observation Loafer, having not been there since I was 2, I don't have your perspective. 

the reasons that many countries aren't targetted by ISLAMIC terrorists are probably too many to mention or divulge. 

As for the pissing match: I agree with your message Macdoc but perhaps not the venue in this case. The original Thread Title and article link referenced today's attack on London. The information in the VERY FIRST POST was egotistical and self serving. I prefer to focus on the news story. Your comparison to the Afhanistan attack is a valid addition in that it draws comparisons to what else is going on in the world that is also important.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

well.... I think that this is just spillage form the Iraq war, I mean, violence begetts violence, and this was expected, but, aside from that, How is an Iraqui's blood any Different from a Londoner's or American's... Stop it children, STOP IT, Someone needs a time out... and it's not just me!


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Only the spin doctors are different Vinnie. Only the spin doctors.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

come on Moscool, where are ya ?
we're worried about you


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Someone made a good point on the BBC website.....knowing what a small portion of the British population can be like I do hope the Muslim communities in the UK are not vilified as a whole because of this horrific incident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Loafer said:


> come on Moscool, where are ya ?
> we're worried about you


Me too Loafer, me too.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Loafer said:


> Someone made a good point on the BBC website.....knowing what a small portion of the British population can be like I do hope the Muslim communities in the UK are not vilified as a whole because of this horrific incident.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm


I think that many ignorant people maybe resenting Muslims because of a few bad seeds. Painting all Religious people under the same brush is wrong. It's sad to see that people still do this. It's no different then people attacking Christians because of a few bad seeds. Then again are these extremists really Muslims because they say they are? Are the KKK really Christians because they say they are? Actions speak louder then words.  No one is perfect but hate and killing is not what most mainstream Religions are about. At least in my opinion.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

ust looking at the BBC website....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/html/default.stm

it was nearly an hour between the 1st blast and the last......they didn't shut the tube down immediately after the 1st ?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

What a horrible tragedy. Not unexpected but horrible. I hope those responsible are found and tried and punished. Unfortunatly this is a direct result of UK policy. I don't see how the new identity cards will prevent this sort of thing.
As was stated earlier probably the only way to end this is foreign policy changes. Unfortunatly more clampdowns is the most likely responce. 

My heart goes out to all who are affected by this.

"As ye sew, so shall ye reap" Time to re-think "the war on terror" because it isn't working and never was designed to work.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Man, Exactly, War on Terrorism is just War on War, and only those who provide product to the war gain from this.... Someone mentioned Ghandi before, stating that he didn't really do anything, well, you are right, he didn't strike out in anger, he Didn't call names, he was just who he was. Violence must satisfy something in people, to see the distruction of someone that you hate, or an opposition to your government. Guess what, governments are Organized Crime and War is Organized Murder, Now would be a good time for some Organized Justice, Organized Giving and could we please get some help for the environment, please, we Kinda need it to live ya know!


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

I am not sure I follow what people are saying regarding foreign policy. It seems to me, correct me if I am wrong, some are blaming the US & Britton for what the Government of these countries believes is right regarding their policy. It seems some people are rhetorically saying to some degree they deserve what they get and if they don't change then it's there fault. 

Murder is murder to me and it doesn’t matter what side you’re on. Why should countries have to change their policy if they believe in it? Maybe you don't agree with it, but how does that make it right or wrong. If America/Britton change some of their polices, wont someone else have a reason to attack them? Do you think if America changed its policies that the fundamentalists would go away? America will destroy itself from within I think. From my understanding, was most of this backlash regarding the US going into the Middle East? Maybe we should start chucking grenades at the States because we don't like how they pollute our environment.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

*.*

Invade Saudi Arabia.

Oh no, can't do that.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

All I have to say.. is the title of this thread maddens me every time I read it.

It's like getting dental work done without novacane. This is a terrible title to reflect on these horrific events and was only posted to start another "War on Islamism."

I hope all is ok and everyone finds a place in their hearts for those who will be lost. Sad times.

Those of you with friends and Family in London, my thoughts and heart be with you.


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Tell me why the hue and cry for London and not for this??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The biggest difference, MacDoc, is that London is not a war zone. While I certainly do not condone US airstrikes killing innocent civilians, I would think even some Afghans realize that it is an unfortunate side of the conflict that innocent civilians may get caught up in the war in the effort to, hopefully one day, extract Afghanistan from its current predicament. Also, the warplanes had a purpose there, bombs in downtown London do not. I am not picking sides, not condemning or condoning, just making a point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The biggest difference, MacDoc, is that London is not a war zone.


Better think that through a bit


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

those who kill are to blame, anyone who uses violence as a solution is to blame, but to blame is far too easy because it proposes no solution of alternative measures. I would just like the world to relax, put down yer arms, we got some bigger fish fryin to do! 

oh, what the heck, let's just blow everything up, then there will be no more problems!

this solution is antiquated and ineffective


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

OK, thinking [2 secs] done. Your point?

So, should Al Qaeda suddenly think that it's open season on Macintosh dealers because they spread joy to the "have" world, you won't have a problem with dying in your small corner of the globe?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vexel said:


> All I have to say.. is the title of this thread maddens me every time I read it.


What bothers me about the title is that there is what I can see as an undercurrent of "See, I'm right" in it. The horrible crimes of this morning have just become fodder for the authors point of view.

I haven't seen the Bush statements yet myself, not having cable TV installed, but my brother emailed me to tell me that what he saw behind Bush's statement was repressed glee. While this may be simply the case of someone reading something into it, I find it believable because of the simple fact that extreme Islamist terrorists and the extreme Project for the New American Century neo-conservatives are both working towards the same ends.

The Islamist terrorists are happy that they have, with this mass murder, brought the focus back to their agenda. They have once again successfully slapped the bull in the face, daring him to charge at them. They know that they win if the bull charges at them.

The PNAC neocons are happy because this act has brought the focus back to their agenda, which is using the faux "War on Terrorism" to enhance the United States global military dominance. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld must find it difficult to restrain their glee that they have been given another giant gift towards establishing that end. They are more than happy and willing to be slapped at and charge.

The main thing that the citizens of the world, who are in the middle of this conflict must ask is, can a "War on Terrorism" ever be won? I suggest that it could never be won. To make ourselves completely safe from horrific crimes, such as this morning's bombings, would involve submitting to an intolerable level of security and loss of our essential freedoms. There are many who might have no problem living in a police state to feel some sense of safety.

How do we get rid of terrorism? If you want to get rid of mosquitoes, quit creating swamps. Are the PNAC dreams of world domination that fuel Al Qaeda propaganda worth the result? Does the world have any other choice besides attempting to occupy and dominate the Middle East?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sigh.........a war zone is where ONE of the combatants decides it is 

30,000' below or a London subway or in your living room by way of propaganda or molotov cocktails

What you think this is, Marquis of Queensbury rules???....


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I appears as though it was a series of 'planted bombs' which is very organized. The occurrence a day after the Olympic bid win was just happenstance. The bomb planters would have been well aware of the G8 summit though. 

Yes, regardless of whether you are in occupied territory or not, no one wants, asks or expects a bomb to be dropped on their house. 

Do the Brits still have the corporate memory to increase security as in during the Northern Ireland days. There were bombs detonated in Londonderry many years ago.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Bush said; "The war on terror goes on"

My condolences go out to the injured, killed and relatives. When will the insanity stop and some actual sense be brought to bear? There seems to be a dearth of intelligent thinking as applied to these acts of horror. Just knee-jerk fanning of flames. Terrorism will not be beaten by bullets.

planethoth has be banned for a week but he/she is not the problem. It's the attitude of our leaders.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Macdoc,

The London bombings this morning were an attack aimed at civilians for the sole purpose of spreading terror and misery. No one is saying that the American air strike is anything other than a terrible mistake in an area where hiding millitants shot down a US helicopter last week. Not much consolation to the dead, but surely you can see the difference? I have no worries of attack from US planes but like many, I was very nervous on the TTC today... It could easily happen here.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I think if you declare war on someone, you can't then quibble about where it can be waged. It's o.k. to bomb "their" territory but not for them to bomb "ours"? Civilians have always been casualties of war. I'm no authority, but it must be a long time since we had a war where only combatants were killed.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Having lived in London during the IRA years and having bombs go off in markets
and even having Knightsbridge station blow up behind me on my way to work to
Harrods...My heart goes out to those people.

Karma will get those buggers for sure,
It's too bad really...Such a s.a.d. race of individuals these extremists
(Because that is what they really are...S.ick A.nd D.estructive)

If only I had the cure...Oh well...
I'm sure that the Nostro predictions will help them wipe themselves out.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

A harrowing personal observation dolawren. Which is why it struck me as odd when a radio announcer, perhaps with a slim appreciation for history, remarked that this was "the first time since WWII" that bombs had gone off on British soil.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN - you just fulfilled their fondest wishes 



> Using the odds of dying in a terrorist related attack during your lifetime as noted below from the CDC, let's compare them to the odds of dying from a long list of real, everyday dangers.
> 
> 1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
> 1 in 1,500,000 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
> ...


US numbers.



> "How's this for perspective? How many Afghani and Iraqi CIVILIANS died in the U.S. wars in those countries compared with the 3,000 U.S. CIVILIANS that died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11?"
> Here's the numbers:
> AFGHANI CIVILIANS KILLED (not including the thousands of Talibaners the U.S. bombed and killed): "The report places the death toll of Afghani CIVILIANS at 3,767, lists the number of civilian casualties, location, type of weapon they were killed with, and source of information. It is a conservative estimate, and the genuine death toll could be as high as 5,000."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm
> ...


Accidental........Humans Rights Watch says otherwise....



> American troops are killing and abusing Afghans, rights body says
> Brian Whitaker
> Monday March 8, 2004
> Guardian
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4874750-108920,00.html

and this is not Iraq where the civilian casualties are much higher in an essentially bi/lateral war on a country that had not attacked either Britain or the US.

I'm making no apologies or excuses for combatants ON EITHER side of the conflict but whether it's bombing from 30,000' or bombing a train the results and methods are odious.

In Rwanda the very presence of French troops seen as colleagues of the genocidaires pretty much guaranteed prolonged killing and conflict.

Consider the strong diplomatic effort by China and Russia to hasten the complete withdrawal of US troops throughout the the Stans.

There are no easy solutions to the conflict but continuing events involving civilians by the US whether intentional or not simply fans the flames and brings in willing volunteers for attacks such as in London.

I DON'T see many volunteers heading the other way. In fact there seems quite a dearth of them.

There ARE no easy answers but the continuing intervention has patently been a disaster and is now reaching out beyond the Central Asian peoples. 



> According to The Lancet: "the crude mortality rate during the period of war and occupation was 12.3 per 1000 people per year". In comparison, a conservative estimate of what it SHOULD BE is 4.0 per thousand per year based on current death rates in Iraq's impoverished but peaceful neighbours Jordan and Syria (http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2 ). The "excess" or "avoidable" post-invasion mortality rate is accordingly 12.3 - 4.0 = 8.3 per 1000 people per year.
> 
> Assuming an Iraqi population of 25 million, the excess mortality (avoidable mortality) after 2 years of UK-US occupation will have been 8.3 x 25 x 2 thousand = 415,000 = 0.4 million.
> 
> ...


Complete text - Dr. Gideon Polya Writes Open Letter to Australian Law Officials

Dr. Gideon Polya, a well-known and highly respected scientist of Australia, recently wrote an open letter to the law officials of his country. Here is what he wrote: 

http://www.newscentralasia.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=848

Is there any wonder there are bombs in London...........

Vinnie wrote....


> this solution is antiquated and ineffective


........indeed.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> FN - you just fulfilled their fondest wishes.


I don't think so... their first wish is to disrupt my life and everyone else's and in that they have failed. I still took the TTC to work and back. Their second wish is to undermine our pluralistic society and the rights and freedoms that are its foundations. That we will need to guard against.

Any odds calculations are based on history... they don't offer much reassurance today.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I would like to know just HOW you KNOW that this is islamic attack? What proof do you have? Maybe this has been addressed in this thread - I haven't read the whole thing - just curious how Planethoth KNOWS this is islamic? Isn't that like hanging someone before they have been tried and proven guilty?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Cameo said:


> I would like to know just HOW you KNOW that this is islamic attack? What proof do you have? Maybe this has been addressed in this thread - I haven't read the whole thing - just curious how Planethoth KNOWS this is islamic? Isn't that like hanging someone before they have been tried and proven guilty?


:clap: Well said!


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

thank you


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

C'mon FN - you know very well the threat on a personal basis is miniscule, not even in the same magnitude range as actual likelihoods.

Cameo - red herring - it has all the marks of an Al Qaeda attack and has been claimed by them.

Bottom line there is a huge pool of disenchanted incited and organized by fanatics. If hearts and minds cannot be won in the general populations in the Middle East OR the perceived invaders don't leave or both, then the large scale conflict WILL continue and no amount of security will prevent incidents.

In my mind ONLY the core populations and peoples can deal with the extremists in their midst just as we must do with our own.

The FBIs greatest threat is domestic from PETA....... 

The Russian experience in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam clearly shows without local support the battle is never ending and Britains situation with Ireland as well.
Britain didn't solve the issues - they may have enabled the Irish to settle it themselves.

South Africans had to work out apartheid.

Of course nations and peoples need help and I'm generally proud of how Canada helps and the perception of our nation in the world.

But perceived imperialists...........which the US and Britain certainly are and which Russia and China may be again.........very hard to win popular support in the occupied areas and without that....no end of violence as is so clearly laid out in the Australian's letter.

As the newly minted saying goes "Every time we fail to learn from history it gets more expensive......in monetary AND far worse.....in human terms." 


Imagine..........John Lennon we miss you.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hate to keep bringing up avian flu but the US has spent literally tens of billions of dollars of civil defense and security measures since 9/11 in response to a terrible attack that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused massive economic consequences. Forget the $200 billion spent on Iraq. Relative risk to Americans? 1 in 100,000. The next pandemic will kill between 1 million and 15 million Americans. Relative risk 1 in 20 to 1 in 300. Amount spent?

We are being duped into false security by the spending of money on visible security measures. Makes us feel good perhaps, but its effectiveness is unclear (unfortunately, its impossible to know). We are over-priotitizing the terrorist threats. This does not mean ignore it - but we need a better perspective. Dying from an explosion or from decomposition of your lung tissue - is there a difference?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Dying from an explosion or from decomposition of your lung tissue -


Dude you just seriously scared the s**t out me... decomposition of your lung tissues.... ick


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly.....real threats get short shrift or as with climate change - utter denial. 

Under Truman the US showed what it could do.
The Carnegie institute has shown for almost a century what America CAN do
http://carnegieinstitution.org/Carnegie22.htm ( you'll be amazed )

..........when the power of a superpower with a visionary leader is harnessed to truly improve the world instead of arm it.

There are elements of greatness in the US that have surfaced - Britain and France too........but too often the power and developments are employed to venal if not downright disgusting ends.

and the whirlwind is reaped.


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

A friend of mine was around to see this happen. Talked to them on iChat for a while today and got the whole scoop. Truely horrific


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Hate to keep bringing up avian flu but the US has spent literally tens of billions of dollars of civil defense and security measures since 9/11 in response to a terrible attack that killed approximately 3,000 people and caused massive economic consequences. Forget the $200 billion spent on Iraq. Relative risk to Americans? 1 in 100,000. The next pandemic will kill between 1 million and 15 million Americans. Relative risk 1 in 20 to 1 in 300. Amount spent?
> 
> We are being duped into false security by the spending of money on visible security measures. Makes us feel good perhaps, but its effectiveness is unclear (unfortunately, its impossible to know). We are over-priotitizing the terrorist threats. This does not mean ignore it - but we need a better perspective. Dying from an explosion or from decomposition of your lung tissue - is there a difference?



Profit margins on military hardware and support (read Halliburton) are much better, nevermind oil revenues.
It's all about the money.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Could be right - could be islamic - I would just like it proved before hangin em.
If I was charged with something I sure as hell wouldnt like to be convicted before proven guilty, just because it LOOKS like I may have done it.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Wolfshead, 

I couldn't disagree with you more. No matter who did it, IRA, Islamic Terrorists, or Anti-Globalization fanatics, it is terrorism.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ummm Cameo, an Al Qaeda group claimed responsibility. Occam's Razor.

Looks like a duck, quack's like a duck, CLAIMS it IS a duck...........

Let's just assume it's a duck and not some odd daffy in disguise for PETA.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Wolfshead,
> 
> I couldn't disagree with you more. No matter who did it, IRA, Islamic Terrorists, or Anti-Globalization fanatics, it is terrorism.


Even though.. it looks like it has been done by terrorists. I understand what Wolfshead was trying to get across. You can't just bomb someone else's country without expecting them to bomb back. In that right.. This is not terrorism, it's outright War. 

I mean.. We can bomb Baghdad.. but.. they aren't allowed to bomb london? They are both Major Cities from each country.

Get this straight.. I am not condoning any of it.. But to think there won't be retaliation is silly. However, it is SAD that neither country (countries) will ever figure out that bombs aren't the answer.

I think EhMax should hit all of them with Ice Capps


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*Violence begets violence*

It was always thus.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Anyone read the numbers in the Australian letter - mind bending ...1.2 BILLION dead since the 50s.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

an earlier post said:


> The London bombings this morning were an attack aimed at civilians for the sole purpose of spreading terror and misery.


If in the foregoing sentence the words "London bombings" were changed to a blank, the result would be, almost word by word, the formula that provides the major premiss on which Bush's "War on Terror" is predicated. The only difference is that instead of attributing to the terrorists the purpose of "spreading terror and misery", Bush says (and now Blair has repeated) that their goal is to "destroy our way of life." And they want to achieve this, it is said, because they "are evil," because "they hate us," and because "they hate democracy."

It seems to me that this is an obtuse and singularly unhelpful—indeed, thoroughly countervailing—assessment of the motivation of terrorists. No one could seriously entertain it unless under certan conditions, such as the following.

The explanation that "they are evil," etc. would make sense to some one who was so completely unaware of the background against which terrorist acts are committed that he or she could not perceive the elementary fact that terrorists seek to "spread terror and misery" as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. For example, one may be so ill-informed of recent events as to give no thought to the possibility that the London bombings had something to do with the presence of British troops in Iraq, following the participation of British troops in the infliction of terror and misery upon Iraqui civilians. Needless to say, British forces did not do so because they are "evil," or because they "hated the Iraqui way of life." For they, too—or at least, those who unleashed them—have been heard to say, while wringing their hands, that they "profoundly regret" having to inflict "terror and misery" on admittedly innocent people; the problem is that they "have no choice." They do it strictly as a means to an end. Therefore, in these circumstances "terror and misery" should not be called "terror and misery;" the proper description is "collateral damage."

The same explanation also makes sense, however, to people who are well informed and who know perfectly well that terrorists do no inflict "terror and misery" for their own sakes, but for the sake of achieving a political end--but who have the disposition to assume that whereas their own political goals are "good", the goals of terrorists are "evil." For example, "we" want peace, happiness, and prosperity, which are good, if not holy, whereas terrorists, for some strange reason, do not want to be happy or prosperous, and prefer war to peace, because war is holy. The disposition to make this assumption is called, in English, "self-righteousness." I do not know the Arabic word for the same attitude, but I understand there is one.

Finally, the formula also makes sense to people who know that as an explanation it is utter nonsense, and who appreciate that terrorists act in the light of rationally-structured calculations of the relationship between their desired ends and their chosen means—but who know that unthinking rabbles can be best roused by insisting that terrorists are evil and seek nothing but to inflict terror and misery on innocent people. They are right, of course. It always works.

There probably are other groups who are satisfied with the same explanation, but these three comprise the immense majority of our fellow citizens. Those of us who disagree with their wisdom (or with their "patriotism," or with their "understanding of the enemy") have little choice besides waiting them out patiently, hoping that once in a while they will take some time out and actually proceed to think.

To gain our approval they would not even have to resort to considerations of human fellowship or sympathy with those on whom either "terror and misery" or "collateral damage," as the case may be, is inflicted. It would suffice if they were selfishly to calculate where the practicalities lie. 

William



P/S



an earlier post said:


> [T]heir first wish is to disrupt my life and everyone else's … Their second wish is to undermine our pluralistic society and the rights and freedoms that are its foundations. That we will need to guard against.


In my view our priorities should be ordered differently. What we might guard against, before we guard against these evils, is group-think and para-think, but above all non-think.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> but who know that unthinking rabbles can be best roused by insisting that terrorists are evil and seek nothing but to inflict terror and misery on innocent people. They are right, of course. It always works.


 :clap:

Good post.
Orwell would be clapping too.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Orwell would be with those who are trying to stop a ragtag group of religious fanatics from achieving their totalitarian world view. 

And no, I'm not talking about Neo-Cons.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Orwell warned against his own government when he was bound by the secrecy act not to reveal what he knew of the activities during and AFTER WWII in particular the rewriting of history. 
HE was talking about the NeoCons and their ilk.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

William, I salute you for putting it all so well.

When the ninny Blair spoke (gravely) about the bombings in London, he chose the insolent, gutless, time-honoured formula which typically uses phrases like "the British people", "the British way of life", "our way of life". This, at a time of misery, is intended to rally everyone around to face what is supposedly a common enemy. It is a deceitful device which essentially uses "the British people" as a shield. "Look what those beastly terrorists have done to YOU and YOUR way of life." It is intended to shift the focus of the conflict so that it is "the British people" against the terrorists. This then, in the case of British public opinion, is intended to deflect and overshadow any anti-war, anti-Bush/Blair sentiment (of which there is much in Britain).

We are not supposed to be other than stunned and receptive to the official line in the face of attacks on innocent civilians. We are not supposed to be cool, analytical and grimly rational because that would be a disgraceful betrayal of those who were the victims. We are not supposed to remember, and dwell on, the words of the previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, who said it was not a matter of "if", but of "when …"

When our glorious leaders embark on their foreign adventures, they inevitably risk the lives of the domestic population as well as the military personnel who are sent abroad.

The events of yesterday have, sadly, been long-expected.

I am not pro-terrorist. They are not my friends. They can not have my sympathy or allegiance. One of my daughters lives, travels and works in London. I didn't feel very clever yesterday morning as I phoned her office in order to hear her voice. It wasn't very pleasant when, mid-morning, she phoned us in hysterics because she had been unable to get in touch with friends who did work and travel in zone 1.

I regard "the British people" as caught, against the will of a large proportion of them, in the crossfire.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Snapple- reaction to the Iraq/Iran treaty in London???
http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ne...tion_world/iraq_transition/article_589337.php

( maybe put in the relevant thread ) http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=28588

••

Also good post BTW - thanks.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

The trouble with this kind of terrorism is that it can be accomplished by "posers"

Who's to say who the real culprits are...What's a phone call anyways?...Could of
been the IRA for all we know disguising the attack as Al- Kay- Doh
(I refuse to give the proper spelling to a bunch of frigg'n exploding morons)

Perthaps the IRA is envious...
But...Doesn't want the U.S. Aircraft carriers parked off of Ireland.


----------

