Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

who is responsible for the London attacks?

I thought the Telgraph article was a piece of kneejerk reactionary bile, from a cosseted public school boy who as he went to bed each night as a young Etonian ( or other equivalent ) heard the sound of Jerusalem playing in his mind and imagined flags waving from all corners of his four poster bed.
 
Ae589 said:
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?

I'm suggesting that you read the article.
 
oi2002 said:
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 To fight the Jihad we need to understand it and Zakaria makes a very good point here:

A fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie for writing disparaging things about islam.

Where is the fatwa against Osama Bin Laden?
 
oi2002 said:
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.

Explain how killing innocents in New York or London advances their cause.
 
oi2002 said:
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.

So then you disagree with a number of posters here who state that the bombers act out of some sort of desperation.

What you're telling us, is that this is a political power struggle to seize the reins back home in the middle east from other muslims, and that the lives of commuters in London are just pawns in the game.

At least if they were fighting some battle out of a misplaced desire to end poverty or something, you might ascribe ideals to them, however misguided.

By your analysis, they can be described as nothing but evil.
 
oi2002 said:
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 To fight the Jihad we need to understand it and Zakaria makes a very good point here:

There is another side to your excerpt talking about the inability to declare anyone apostate, or kafir. It also means that no matter how insane OBL or other terrorists go in the name of islam, neither can they be declared apostate.
 
fela fan said:
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.]

Oil exists in Nigeria, and there is other wealth in sub saharan africa that if possessed in sympathetic hands, could go to the formation of radical groups.

It's interesting that so many posters talk of the level of education in various islamic countries, the scientific contributions, etc., and to an extent they are right. Yet somehow, these are the same desperate countries that seem to spawn the worst sorts of terrorists. Oddly enough, all of these terrorists invoke the rhetoric of islam. But of course there's no connection there.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
What's wrong with Charlie Daniels?

This

I don't think anyone in London (that I've spoken to, and believe me I don't work with liberals) is going to let any government use this tragedy as an excuse for more faceless killing.
 
exosculate said:
I thought the Telgraph article was a piece of kneejerk reactionary bile, from a cosseted public school boy who as he went to bed each night as a young Etonian ( or other equivalent ) heard the sound of Jerusalem playing in his mind and imagined flags waving from all corners of his four poster bed.

Rather than calling the author names, why not try refuting his points. I'll give oi2002 that, even if his analysis is incorrect.
 
maomao said:
This

I don't think anyone in London (that I've spoken to, and believe me I don't work with liberals) is going to let any government use this tragedy as an excuse for more faceless killing.

You hate him because he's against terrorism, and dislikes those who hide behind religion in order to do evil?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
It's interesting that so many posters talk of the level of education in various islamic countries, the scientific contributions, etc., and to an extent they are right. Yet somehow, these are the same desperate countries that seem to spawn the worst sorts of terrorists. Oddly enough, all of these terrorists invoke the rhetoric of islam. But of course there's no connection there.

Could you quote any poster on this thread who has suggested that the London bombers acted out of desperation?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You hate him because he's against terrorism, and dislikes those who hide behind religion in order to do evil?

No I hate him because he promotes evil from behiond a facade of religion himself. From link:

There can be no placating, no letup, and no quarter given. This is an all out battle for the soul of a planet. There will be much letting of blood before this battle is decided, there will be much anguish and destruction, but with the help of Almighty God and the loyalty of good people everywhere we will win

Oh, but that's good religion. Because Jesus was nicer than Mohumed or something.
 
Oddly enough, all of these terrorists invoke the rhetoric of islam. But of course there's no connection there.

No, there is no connection between Islam and terrorism, any more then there is between Christianity or Judaism and terrorism. No causal connection at least.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Rather than calling the author names, why not try refuting his points. I'll give oi2002 that, even if his analysis is incorrect.


He's not worthy of serious consideration.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
If that's how you think, then neither are you.


To a right winger like yourself my thinking will never resonate - so what you think of me at this point is very irrelevant.
 
oi2002 said:
<snip> if we demonize Islam we lose our best allies against the Jihad. <snip>
A good illustration here is what happened to earlier jihadi movements, for example Egypt and arguably also Algeria.

The mass of the population was completely horrified at their murderous fanaticism, they were politically marginalised and as a result, the jihadi organisations were smashed and their membership jailed, killed or exiled.
 
exosculate said:
To a right winger like yourself my thinking will never resonate - so what you think of me at this point is very irrelevant.

Well there you go. And to see you refer to me as a right winger, is further proof of the depth of your understanding of things.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Well there you go. And to see you refer to me as a right winger, is further proof of the depth of your understanding of things.


Everything you say confirms it. Are you seriously suggesting that is not the case?
 
There was a good article by Karen ARmstong in the Guardian today. She states that even the use of the term jihad in association with terrorism is misleading. 'Lesser jihad' refers to military warfare, but the 'greater jihad' is the constant struggle towards spiritual perfection.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
There is another side to your excerpt talking about the inability to declare anyone apostate, or kafir. It also means that no matter how insane OBL or other terrorists go in the name of islam, neither can they be declared apostate.
Well observed JC; I was unable to find the full text of the edict but I suspect a big cheese like grand ayatollah Al Sistani can do just that.

But you're missing the point formerly any leader of prayer could declare a Muslim apostate they're saying only a qualified Muslim scholar can do it this strikes right at the heart of AQs line of attack on the "near enemy" in particular the Saudi Kingship. That's very signifigant.

I think the 10 Fatwas that barely pre-date the London bombing are late in coming. I'm going to quote a bit more from that article. As it's one of the few hopeful things I've read about this whole sorry mess lately.
The other important difference between the London bombings and 9/11 has been the response of the world of Islam. For months after 9/11, I kept writing that it was sad and disturbing that Muslims were reluctant to condemn the attacks. This time is different. Major Muslim groups in Britain have unambiguously denounced the bombings. Even the so-called fundamentalist organisations have condemned it. The Muslim Association of Britain, a hard-line group with alleged ties to militants in the Middle East, called the bombings "heinous and repulsive" and urged Muslims to help the emergency services and police. "We have faith in Britain and British people that we as a country will not be defeated by this," said its spokesman, Anas Altikriti.

he response outside Britain has also been much stronger than ever before. The grand imam of Al-Azhar, Shaikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, condemned the bombers but went further, rejecting the argument that this attack could be justified as an attempt to force Britain out of Iraq. "This is illogical and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians," he said. More striking have been the condemnations from radical groups like Hamas, Hizbullah and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, all of which have denounced the bombings. Many of them have, of course, coupled their attacks on the terrorists with denunciations of American and British policies in the Middle East, particularly regarding Iraq and the Palestinian territories. But that kind of rhetoric is old news. What is new here is the fact that no one, not even Hamas, can continue to condone or even stay silent about these barbarities. September 11 shocked the Arab psyche. For months afterward, Arabs and many Muslims went through phases recognisable to psychologists: shock, denial, anger. (Remember those absurd claims that 9/11 was a Mossad plot?) They are finally, slowly, moving toward recognising that there is a great dysfunction in the world of Islam, which has allowed Muslims to concoct wild conspiracy theories, blame others for their problems and, worst of all, condone grotesque violence.
A Fatwa was already issued by Spanish Muslims against OBL.
It added: "Inasmuch as Usama bin Laden and his organization defend terrorism as legal and try to base it on the Quran ... they are committing the crime of 'istihlal' and thus become apostates that should not be considered Muslims or treated as such." The Arabic term 'istihlal' refers to the act of making up one's own laws.

Escudero said a fatwa can be issued by any Muslim leader who leads prayer sessions and as he serves such a role, he himself lawfully issued the edict.
The term “istihlal” refers to the act of making up one’s own laws.

I don't know if there's an Islamic crime of assuming the worst about another religion there probably should be this chap could probably advise.

It would be really helpful, indeed patriotic, if intellligent people like yourself started seeing Islam as part of the solutiion rather than the source of the problem.
 
oi2002 said:
A Fatwa was already issued by Spanish Muslims against OBL..

I stand corrected.

This is from your article:

MADRID, Spain — Muslim clerics in Spain issued what they called the world's first fatwa (search), or Islamic edict, against Usama bin Laden on Thursday, the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, calling him an apostate and urging others of their faith to denounce the Al Qaeda (search) leader.



I wonder if this fatwa stands in light of the recent pronouncement that you've advised us about re: the invalidity of a declaration of apostasy?
 
oi2002 said:
It would be really helpful, indeed patriotic, if intellligent people like yourself started seeing Islam as part of the solutiion rather than the source of the problem.

I believe that intelligent people can contribute to a solution by coming to an understanding of islam that isn't clouded by prejudice, nor by political correctness or reverse bias.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I believe that intelligent people can contribute to a solution by coming to an understanding of islam that isn't clouded by prejudice, nor by political correctness or reverse bias.

And you honestly believe that you yourself have this understanding?
 
Back
Top Bottom