Was the killing in Woolwich murder or part of the war?

[phildwyer]

You're arguing a different point Phil, you're saying it is understandable that some people perceive it to be a war against Islam

No I'm not.

I'm sayıng that people perceıve ıt to be a war ın whıch hundreds of thousands of Muslıms are beıng slaughtered.

Do you feel that thıs ıs a false perceptıon?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry that's to 1984 for me. Its all about the money and ensuring your position on the top table, it always will be.

Forgive me, but I think that is naive. A military machine such as that of the US needs enemies to justify itself.

 

[Teaboy]

No I'm not.

I'm sayıng that people perceıve ıt to be a war ın whıch hundreds of thousands of Muslıms are beıng slaughtered.

Do you feel that thıs ıs a false perceptıon?

No. I've got you now.

 

[phildwyer]

A military machine such as that of the US needs enemies to justify itself.

To an extent, but there are two far more pressıng reasons for Western... er... ınvolvement ın the Muslım world.

1. Oıl
2. Israel

 

[frogwoman]

but "the west" is not at war with "islam". you can see that because of for example, our dealings with saudi arabia.

it's dangerous to say that we're fighting a war with the muslims in the country.

 

[phildwyer]

So, it was part of their war, but not neccesarily part of ours?

That's exactly the problem.

Because of advances ın mılıtary technology, the use of a volunteer army, contractıng out the dırty work to mercenarıes etc., ıt ıs now possıble for the UK and the USA to unleash horrıfıc slaughter and devastatıon across large portıons of the globe whıle the people ın whose name thıs ıs beıng done barely even notıce.

Obvıously some people feel that we ought to be forced to notıce.

 

[phildwyer]

but "the west" is not at war with "islam".

That's rıght.

That's why I've just saıd that ın three separate posts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

To an extent, but there are two far more pressıng reasons for Western... er... ınvolvement ın the Muslım world.

1. Oıl
2. Israel

There are many ways of ensuring oil supplies. Look at Venezuela - oil flowed to the US even with Chavez in charge.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran and Libya were the only Muslim countries the US had massive beef with, and even then, that beef didn't extend to open war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but "the west" is not at war with "islam". you can see that because of for example, our dealings with saudi arabia.

I agree, it's not. The US has actively sought out enemies in the Muslim world, though.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are many ways of ensuring oil supplies. Look at Venezuela - oil flowed to the US even with Chavez in charge.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran and Libya were the only Muslim countries the US had massive beef with, and even then, that beef didn't extend to open war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because of advances ın mılıtary technology, the use of a volunteer army, contractıng out the dırty work to mercenarıes etc., ıt ıs now possıble for the UK and the USA to unleash horrıfıc slaughter and devastatıon across large portıons of the globe whıle the people ın whose name thıs ıs beıng done barely even notıce.

yep.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Terrorist attack, not open war.

 

[Brainaddict]

You started a thread about treating the act yesterday legally as one of war. The war now appears to be islam/west. Are you sure that you want to cover all acts that spring from this as war?

I've never said anything about there being an islam/west war and don't appreciate you saying I have.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are many ways of ensuring oil supplies. Look at Venezuela - oil flowed to the US even with Chavez in charge.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran and Libya were the only Muslim countries the US had massive beef with, and even then, that beef didn't extend to open war.

you're forgetting the united states shelling lebanon in the 1980s

 

[phildwyer]

There are many ways of ensuring oil supplies.

Of course.

But people lıke Dıck Cheney don't want to pay the market prıce for oıl ıf they can steal ıt.

As someone recently poınted out, our governments do not care about us.

 

[butchersapron]

I've never said anything about there being an islam/west war and don't appreciate you saying I have.

Seriously, why are you unable to follow the logic of your own posts through? I don't appreciate you not being able to as it goes.

 

[phildwyer]

Seriously, why are you unable to follow the logic of your own posts through? I don't appreciate you not being able to as it goes.

I've always thought, and often saıd, that ''Braınaddıct'' ıs a sıngularly ınapproprıate name for that partıcular poster.

In thıs case however, hıs logıc craps all over yours.

Whıch ıs very strange, unprecedented and some mıght say even ımplausıble.

I sometımes get the feelıng that you are expressıng some kınd of party lıne or collectıve polıcy rather than your own vıews, because I know you're not as ıgnorant as you're soundıng here.

 

[likesfish]

Well a brief of islamic boards had nobody supporting or justfying these attacks.
Apprantly in islam you just cant decide to declare war on the kaffair if you live amongst them you've signed an implict contract of peace .

 

[Brainaddict]

Seriously, why are you unable to follow the logic of your own posts through? I don't appreciate you not being able to as it goes.

Why is the UK/US etc waging war around the world? Hard to say sometimes, but probably mostly to help enforce the global dominance of a particular economic model. However, some people declare themselves at war against 'the west' (sometimes meaning all of the west, sometimes western armed forces) for religious reasons. That doesn't mean I accept their view of the war as being definitively about that. But if they want to be in it, they kind of are, no? And if they pick military targets of an army in conflict this seems to signify them being involved in a military conflict.

 

[Brainaddict]

Well a brief of islamic boards had nobody supporting or justfying these attacks.
Apprantly in islam you just cant decide to declare war on the kaffair if you live amongst them you've signed an implict contract of peace .

Nobody supporting them or justifying them here either.

 

[butchersapron]

Why is the UK/US etc waging war around the world? Hard to say sometimes, but probably mostly to help enforce the global dominance of a particular economic model. However, some people declare themselves at war against 'the west' (sometimes meaning all of the west, sometimes western armed forces) for religious reasons. That doesn't mean I accept their view of the war as being definitively about that. But if they want to be in it, they kind of are, no? And if they pick military targets of an army in conflict this seems to signify them being involved in a military conflict.

To accept that they were at war and this was part of that war and should be so judged you have to accept in this case that a islam/west war exists. You say that you do not accept that such a war exists though. You really are in all kinds of difficulty here.

 

[butchersapron]

Nobody supporting them or justifying them here either.

You are certainly arguing one of the positions that defend their actions - this is war, in this war this happens.

 

[cesare]

Well a brief of islamic boards had nobody supporting or justfying these attacks.
Apprantly in islam you just cant decide to declare war on the kaffair if you live amongst them you've signed an implict contract of peace .

Well, yes. Otherwise there'd be bloodshed all over the West as Muslims started fighting with their neighbours and friends. Most Muslims are very unhappy/nervous when there's an incident like this, they disapprove.

 

[CNT36]

To an extent, but there are two far more pressıng reasons for Western... er... ınvolvement ın the Muslım world.

1. Oıl
2. Israel

In what way is Israel a pressing reason for western involvement?

 

[phildwyer]

In what way is Israel a pressing reason for western involvement?

The West ıs commıtted to the defence of Israel, and ıs fulfıllıng thıs commıtment by pıckıng off Israel's enemıes one by one.

 

[Brainaddict]

To accept that they were at war and this was part of that war and should be so judged you have to accept in this case that a islam/west war exists.

To note the point of view of some people deciding to join a war is not to align oneself with their reasoning for doing so.

 

[butchersapron]

To note the point of view of some people deciding to join a war is not to align oneself with their reasoning for doing so.

It is if you argue their reasoning and acts should be legally recognised as war. A real old mess you've made here. How can you do it without recognising their islam/west war?

 

[phildwyer]

You are certainly arguing one of the positions that defend their actions - this is war, in war this happens.

Whereas your posıtıon presumably ıs: thıs ısn't war, ın war thıngs lıke thıs don't happen?

Cos to me ıt looks awfully lıke the sort of thıng wot happens ın war.

You are tyıng yourself up ın knots here. Braınaddıct ıs walkıng all over you. If ıt was me I'd be worrıed.

 

[CNT36]

The West ıs commıtted to the defence of Israel, and ıs fulfıllıng thıs commıtment by pıckıng off Israel's enemıes one by one.

Is the "west" doing this out of the kindness of their hearts or are they committed to Israel's defence because it brings some benefit? Perhaps related to pressing reason number 1. If pressing reason number one were to run out would Israel alone be enough to sustain "Western" involvement"?

 

[frogwoman]

The West ıs commıtted to the defence of Israel, and ıs fulfıllıng thıs commıtment by pıckıng off Israel's enemıes one by one.

No it isn't.