who is responsible for the London attacks?

[mears]

<nino> So most Orientals are bad? huh, mears? </nino>

Wait a minute, why does that say "<Nino>"? is that Nino Savete ( or however you spell it)?

Is he piggybacking of you so I will read his posts

 

[dilute micro]

Wait a minute, why does that say "<Nino>"? is that Nino Savete ( or however you spell it)?

Is he piggybacking of you so I will read his posts

lol. Hardly. I was exploring his ways of thought.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I don't think I've ever watched cockroaches mating before.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You think this is funny boys? Does it amuse you? You are both contemptible.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Laughing at nino? Yeah, funny to me.

He throws a hissy fit anytime someone disagrees with him and then claims you're avoiding the issue whilst doing the exact thing himself. His only redeeming feature is that sometimes he posts something that isn't a sneering one liner.

You asked.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm not talking about nino. I'm talking about mears and his nasty racist jibes.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm not talking about nino. I'm talking about mears and his nasty racist jibes.

I saw none there, could you be reading too much into a statement perhaps?

 

[laptop]

I saw none there

One could read quite a lot into your claim not to have seen racism there.

If an atrocity happens, and it is suggested that it might have been carried out by people claiming to be Christians, and someone's entire response is to start ranting about how "the Italians" are evil... what do you see?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Maybe. I don't think so though. I don't like seeing US right-wingers slinking in here promoting thought-stopping cliches "they hate us because we're free", "all arabs are terrorists" and all that unpleasant stuff. The immediate purpose may be a childish attempt to avoid responsibility for the consequences of actions they supported, but the logical outcome of that thinking is a pogrom.

I really don't like seeing them peddling it right now.

 

[dilute micro]

I don't think I've ever watched cockroaches mating before.

Of course not. You'd be the product.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Its poorly worded, I apologize if I offended anyone. As You can read in my past posts I believe most people are good. Most Arabs are good and most white people and black people are good. Its more about the environment you grew up in, and I bet we can agree onthat.

A certain number of Arabs are responsibe, and by no means not "all". Just like a certain number of Russians were responsible in 1917 or Germans in 1932.

My mistake.

Laptop and BG:
This does not look like a particulary offensive post, if you think he's a racist cunt for other stuff he's posted then bloody well refer to it rather than draging this particular thread through the same shit. If he posts racist crap refer to it where and when it was written.

If it is this thread that offends you then quote it and explain why.[rant] Don't just pop your head in and make some wise crack about cockroaches, acting like a child isn't impressive in real life or on the web. [/rant]

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Do you think it's helpful to have US right-wingers in here pushing race wars?

 

[laptop]

This does not look like a particulary offensive post

That was the apology. The sort of apology that has to be made to avoid a ban, I thought when I first saw it. So he sort-of withdrew his earlier postings, under threat.

And no, I'm not going to dredge up a quotathon.

 

[davekriss]

...Do you think the US troops in Saudi Arabia are there as tourists? NO, their presence is to prop up the most reactionary government in the middle east, because said government is wiling to sell us its oil at knock-down prices. OBL gave their presence as the main reason for 9/11. But how may people in the West are even aware that they're there?

First, condolences to all concerning 7/7.

phil, I know personal events have kept me from keeping up, but I thought the USG withdrew 99% of our troops from Saudi Arabia? Our presence was thought to be destabilizing. In fact, I believe one of the reasons GWB illegally and immorally invaded Iraq was to establish alternate permanent military garrisons from which they can continue to (and in escalating fashion) radiate imperial power.

 

[editor]

Do you think it's helpful to have US right-wingers in here pushing race wars?

Do you think he should be banned?

I haven't seen many (any?) reported posts about him but if he is, as you say, promoting "race wars" here, then naturally I would be very concerned.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm not asking for a ban. I think it's better if people can see them clearly.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

... and make their own minds up. I don't think that sort of rhetoric is necessarily a concious attempt to start a race war. I think for many it's a thought-stopping cliche. "All Arabs/Muslims/etc can be expected to act like this, without any cause you need to bother your head about"

The problem with that cliche is that it logically leads to pogroms and the like.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

And for what it's worth, I apologise for the stuff about the cockroaches, I was angry, which I try to avoid.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Maybe. I don't think so though. I don't like seeing US right-wingers slinking in here promoting thought-stopping cliches "they hate us because we're free", "all arabs are terrorists" and all that unpleasant stuff. The immediate purpose may be a childish attempt to avoid responsibility for the consequences of actions they supported, but the logical outcome of that thinking is a pogrom.

I really don't like seeing them peddling it right now.

I think you're making things up that haven't been said.

But let's explore what should be said.

There was an interesting piece in your Daily Telegraph a day or two ago called "Where is the Muslim Gandhi" It speaks about the supposition that the current wave of muslim fundamentalism arises as some sort of backlash against western imperialism.

The question arises, of course, why there are no Ethiopian terrorist groups blowing up London. Surely if any region of the world has been shat upon by the West, it's sub saharan africa. Yet we don't see people from there swearing to give up their lives in a fight against the imperialist aggressor.

The author of that article points out some of the inherent differences between islam and christianity, one of which is that Mohammed was a politician and a military leader, who embarked on a campaign of conquest, while giving out religious maxims. Surely that has some impact on the direction that the religion took.

The author points out that muslim leaders have yet to specifically condemn any of the known terrorists etc. There have been no fatwas against any of these people. Part of this is due to fear. They know that to do so will result in them becoming possible targets themselves.

The author, Charles Moore, points out that Mohammed Abdul Bari of the East London Mosque, joined with the Bishop of Stepney in condemning the attacks. But apparently, Bari had also welcomed Sheik Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, at the opening of the muslim centre in london. Al sudais has described Jews as "scum of the earth", and "monkeys and pigs who should be annihlated".

Apparently if you criticise Al Sudais to Bari, Bari leaps to the imam's defence.

Apparently Sheik Abdalaqaidr as Suf wrote in Muslim Weekly that British parliamentary democracy should be replaced with " a new civilization based on the worship of Allah".

Last year, Livingstone welcomed to London, Yusuf al Qaradawi, a muslim religious leader who has supported suicide bombings against Israelis, the treatment of all Jews as legitimate targets, the whipping of homosexuals, and the killing of all Americans in Iraq.


Check it out for yourself: it makes for an interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/09/ixopinion.html

 

[davekriss]

I'm pretty sure people who were on the inside have since resigned and said Bush was making plans for Iraq as soon as he got in, to the extent that the threat of Al-Q was not taken as seriousl as it should have been. At least one book was written by one of these guygs, I'm afraid I forget thename rightnow.

Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror.

 

[yield]

Looks like the Telegraph is also working the race war angle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...ixop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=25278

...

Well, I don't expect much, but if you swap the words "jew" and "muslim" that could have been written by a Nazi propaganda functionary circa 1934.

Worrying isn't it?

(/threadrot)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Worrying isn't it?

(/threadrot)

You read that, and all you come away with is "they're working the race war angle?"

How closed your mind must be.

 

[fishfingerer]

A certain number of Arabs are responsibe, and by no means not "all". Just like a certain number of Russians were responsible in 1917 or Germans in 1932.

Russians were cool in 1917.



Blair got the blood price he wanted. The twat.

 

[Rentonite]

Uh Ya know I hate to say it, But......

I have been way to buzy in the real world to spend much time here with you good people. (I know it makes some of you athiests thank GOD)
First off I would like to tender to the UK my deepest condolences for the lives lost.
and, Uh Ya know I hate to say it, But all the carrying on, does not ever bring back a dead friend.

The Alquada shitheads are after you too.
no matter what you do as a country they will Kill all of us with happy abandon if given a chance.
they dont have the power to do that so they are just trying to scare ya

take heart England!

 

[nino_savatte]

lol. Hardly. I was exploring his ways of thought.

You're a fucking idiot.

Still flying the Stars and Bars, dilute? I'll bet you're a fan of Charlie (The South's Gonna Do It Again) Daniels too.

 

[nino_savatte]

You think this is funny boys? Does it amuse you? You are both contemptible.

If you think that's funny you should have a look at dilute's posts on the Lynching thread in the World Forum. He truly is an unreconstructed Dixiecrat.

 

[Ae589]

it makes for an interesting read.

It does. ANd what do you think it's conclusions are? That Livingstone was wrong to welcome certain people, and that the east London mosque is also wrong to defend someone who avocates killing jews. We have laws to deal with this. But your sentence has a ... haging after it. Are you suggesting that islam/muslims are a problem because those 2 people are hateful idiots?

 

[oi2002]

There was an interesting piece in your Daily Telegraph a day or two ago called "Where is the Muslim Gandhi" It speaks about the supposition that the current wave of muslim fundamentalism arises as some sort of backlash against western imperialism.
...
The question arises, of course, why there are no Ethiopian terrorist groups blowing up London. Surely if any region of the world has been shat upon by the West, it's sub saharan africa. Yet we don't see people from there swearing to give up their lives in a fight against the imperialist aggressor.
...
The author of that article points out some of the inherent differences between islam and christianity, one of which is that Mohammed was a politician and a military leader, who embarked on a campaign of conquest, while giving out religious maxims. Surely that has some impact on the direction that the religion took...

Yes the Prophet was a warrior but his final victory over the Meccans was a peaceful one, he and followers dressed in white walk into a heavily Mecca unarmed and it submits. Rather Ghandi like infact. They've rather stricter rules on the conduct of war than other religions. There is an absolute duty to defend the faith in Islam but you have to be a cherry picking poetically illiterate Engineeering Student to mis-read the Koran in service of Binladinism.

There's no Pope in Islam just some senior lawgivers like Al Sistani on the Shi'a side. But there's been lots of condemnation of the London bombing.

The 'well we fucked up them Africans real good and they ain't complaining' is particularly crass.

Studies show Jihadis are a phenomenom of the radicalised Muslim bourgoisie not grinding poverty. They're out to seize power from the passive US vassal elite that rules the ME ("the near enemy") and removing the crusading "far enemy" from their holyland is for them a necessary step in what's essentially a revolutionary path. They aren't like Khomeni the US is not 'The Great Satan'. The US is simply in their way and they intend to remove that obstacle.

They are a marginal revolutionary movement and bigoted idiots who cling to the fatious 'clash of civlizations' model are acting as recruiting sergents for the Jihad.

We are not at war with Islam we are endangered spectators too a power struggle within the Umma and if we demonize Islam we lose our best allies against the Jihad.Fareed Zakaria

...The day before the London bombs, a conference of 180 top Muslim shaikhs and imams, brought together under the auspices of Jordan’s King Abdullah, issued a statement forbidding that any Muslim be declared kafir — an apostate. This is a frontal attack on Al Qaeda’s theological methods. Declaring someone kafir and thus sanctioning his or her death is a favourite tactic of Bin Laden and his ally in Iraq, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.

The conference’s statement was endorsed by 10 fatwas from such big Islamic scholars as Tantawi; Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani; Egypt’s mufti, Ali Jumaa, and the influential Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Signed by adherents of all schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), it also allows only qualified Muslim scholars to issue edicts. The Islamic Conference’s statement, the first of its kind, is a rare show of unity among the religious establishment against terrorists and their scholarly allies.
...

To fight the Jihad we need to understand it and Zakaria makes a very good point here:

The broader shift that needs to take place, however, is a better definition of victory. America’s political leaders continue to give their citizens the impression that victory means ensuring that there will be no other attack on American soil as long as we go on the offence abroad, get perfect intelligence, buy fancy new technologies at home, screen visas and lock some people up. But all these tough tactics and all the intelligence in the world will not change the fact that in today’s open societies, terrorism is easy to carry out. The British authorities, perhaps the world’s best at combating terror, admit they had no warning about last week’s attack. The American response to the London bombs has been a perfect example of US grandstanding. We immediately raised the alert level, scaring Americans, with no specific information about terror attacks in America. Why? Because were something to happen here, politicians and bureaucrats want to be able to say, "Don’t blame us, we told you."

Real victory is not about preventing all attacks everywhere. No one can guarantee that. It’s really about preventing the worst kinds of attacks, and responding well to others. And on this score, America remains woefully unprepared. "The British attacks failed because Britain has excellent response systems and its people are well prepared on how to respond. America has neither advantage today," says Stephen Flynn, a homeland-security expert and author of "America the Vulnerable: How Our Government Is Failing to Protect Us From Terrorism." "We need good education and training for transit workers and citizens, good communication mechanisms among government agencies and the people, and most important, a good public-health infrastructure."

We have little of this today. In the years after 9/11 we have wasted much time, effort and money on other priorities rather than engaging in the massive investment in the systems of response that we need. Our leaders remain unwilling to speak honestly about the world we live in and to help people develop the mentality of response that is essential to prevailing.

The bombs were meant to show that the terrorists were strong and we were weak. In fact they have shown the opposite. But to realise victory fully, we must know what victory means.

 

[fela fan]

The question arises, of course, why there are no Ethiopian terrorist groups blowing up London. Surely if any region of the world has been shat upon by the West, it's sub saharan africa. Yet we don't see people from there swearing to give up their lives in a fight against the imperialist aggressor.

The question may well arise johnny, but the answer also does: money. Probably the whole middle-eastern oil world, islam is the religion of the masses. If members of the general public of those countries feel agrieved against (and you can be sure that's the case) then they will find a lot of money available to tap into.

So the chances are that the fact that terrorists a-la-general-public just happen to be islamic in the process of having loads of money to support their proposed terrorist actions. In other words it might be argued that the islam bit is incidental, it's just that they have access to money to carry out their actions.

Meanwhile of course, we have USG and associated elites... [and here, we end.]

 

[slaar]

Fantastic post oi2002.