energy release
New Member
Loki said:
I meant "what was the purpose of disrupting the G8?"
That explains the rest of my comment.
who is responsible for the London attacks?
- Thread starter mears
- Start date
I meant "what was the purpose of disrupting the G8?"
That explains the rest of my comment.
As for who's responsible, again we should be asking ourselves who benefits.
One expected benefit that the US/UK axis will be counting on is that when the US ask blair for the UK's support again when they go in on syria or iran, then blair will be able to nullify public opinion again. Which probably prior to these bombs could not be counted on, indeed it would have blocked blair from joining his fellow killers across the pond.
However, and despite the media's best attempts, i believe it might backfire on them. I think the british public will on the whole be very suspicious about the timing of these attacks, and sooner or later what the imperialists are doing is going to backfire on them.
Empires crumble from within following an outbreak of overreach...
One expected benefit that the US/UK axis will be counting on is that when the US ask blair for the UK's support again when they go in on syria or iran, then blair will be able to nullify public opinion again. Which probably prior to these bombs could not be counted on, indeed it would have blocked blair from joining his fellow killers across the pond.
However, and despite the media's best attempts, i believe it might backfire on them. I think the british public will on the whole be very suspicious about the timing of these attacks, and sooner or later what the imperialists are doing is going to backfire on them.
Empires crumble from within following an outbreak of overreach...
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
FFS, there won't be any new invasion, not in the next three years at least. We don't have the troops to send, neither do the US. If you've looked at the "Will we invade iran?" thread it's been said several times.fela fan said:
The people who will benifit will be the ecological groups, more attention on the G8, and the other leaders will be more likely to agree with britain. There, my very own conspiracy theory, greenpeace did it.
Adorno boy said:
I don't think my position is contradictory at all. I said that I feel no personal guilt for what has been done in the Middle East. And I don't. Why should I?
What I was really driving at was this. You talked about yesterday's tragedy as a manifestation of the human spirirt (I paraphrase, but you get my drift I'm sure). On one level of course that's true, but it's also such a broad statement as to be pretty much meaningless. Everything we do is a reflection of human nature. The point is to try and understand what drives individuals and groups to act as they do, and just putting it down to 'the human spirit' seems to duck that question.
Of course everyone is responsible for their own actions. I don't deny that. Let's assume that it was Islamist radicals who bombed London yesterday. If we accept your way of thinking they've come from nowhere and they're incomphrehensible and all thje more frightening for being so. in fact, Islamist radicalism - and associated violence - has a history like anything else. it's a social movement like any other, and we can trace the course of its rise over the last few decades, and point out a few things that have contributed to it. And yes, in part our governments are resposnible, because through their encouragement and support the Islamist movement grew and gained adherents. Now, none of that absolves the individuals who carried out the bombings - or those who perpetrate other terrorist acts - of reposnibility for their actions. It just helps to explain them, and understanding a problem is the first step towards dealing with it.
Exactly. They chose to kill, and we did not. But why did they make that choice? Asking that question doesn't make anyone an apologist for their actions - it just reflects a desire to understand them, and hopefully to take action based on that understanding rather than on blind prejudice and anger.
Adorno boy said:
Adorno boy said:
Adorno boy - Interesting posts. You contradicted yourself, though.
Writing *out of the box* are these bombers sovereign individuals making rational informed choices? Or unthinking vandals? Is this atrocity a matter of their perceived powerlessness to arrange a peaceful political response? Or is this act a *spirited* emotive reaction to the/a (historically contingent) war/repression?
...
NOT that I have an answer.
I am willing and able to accept that I share responsiblity for the actions of my government but equally I am aware that I am unable/powerless individually to influence US/UK policy.
Divided we stand.
Strange... I have this memory of 30 years of stalwart support from DC and Boston for the IRA's heroic quest for self-determination with car bombs. DC was also rather miffed when we decided to kicked their cattle prod weilding Argentinian friends out of the Falklands. Was it all a dream???Johnny Canuck2 said:
Incidentally it was you Canadians that turned up to defend Britain against invasion in 1940 while DC vacillated until actually being attacked, sometimes I think we forget who our reliable friends are.
Adorno boy
New Member
Yield, thanks. Let's preface what I say by my admission that I too, do not have an answer. And yet I see no contradiction. [Sorry for the poncy language - not being 'exclusive' - but you appear to have no problem understanding] Out here in Iraq the new euphamism for this extremism is 'Rejectionism'. These labels normally curl my toenails, but perhaps (accidentally) this new monicker hits it on the head. I banged on about ethnicity and the total failure of us (the Western psyche) to rationalise these atrocities. From my experience as a white male in countries like Iraq and Kosovo, I cannot come to terms with the absence of the cultural mores that underpin my way of looking at the world - and whilst that's not ideal, I think it would be reflected in the majority of UK people were they to have similar experiences. That's why I used the term 'unthinking vandalism'. Using my perception and my world view, I struggle to see how people that make these decisions can have the same human (western) reason and rationale. I cannot see how that most humane of instincts, self preservation, can become so mutated by hunger, lack of capital, alienation or historical humiliation. I have been in some shitty situations, and as Primo Levi said during the holocaust(the irony of me using his name isn't lost) the will to stay alive (and accordingly to allow life to stay) is never really eroded.yield said:
Anyway...enjoyed your points.
Eyes wide shut.
Islamic extremeism kills civilians in the west, Asia (Indonesia and Malasia for instance) and Africa (embassy bombings before 9-11). And you people can't acknowledge the problem.
You treat these killers as blameless victims. Eventhough the vast majority of people around the globe who harbor greviences against others don't commit such acts.
Only Islamic extremeists.
But no one wants to talk about that.
Islamic extremeism kills civilians in the west, Asia (Indonesia and Malasia for instance) and Africa (embassy bombings before 9-11). And you people can't acknowledge the problem.
You treat these killers as blameless victims. Eventhough the vast majority of people around the globe who harbor greviences against others don't commit such acts.
Only Islamic extremeists.
But no one wants to talk about that.
mears said:
Who is this addressed to?
So far as I can see, the only 'blameless victims' in this are the people of London, New York, Bali and other places these people attacked. They're as blameless as the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The extremists and terrorists, though, are at the extreme radical end of a much wider movement. As you say, the vast majority of people, no matter what griveances they might hold against the west (some unjustified, some barmy, some all too reasonable), will not resort to violence. only a small - and far from 'blameless' minority will. But as I say, they're at the extreme end of a wider movement that's taking shape, and what I think is important is to understand the causes of that movement and try to address them.
I'm not going to revisit what I said about islamic fundamentalism on page 1 of this thread, but to it I'll add that it's both akin and a successor to other political movements such as Pan-Arab Nationalism. Those movements failed, for various reasons, and radical religion rose in their place. As I was trying to suggest, fundamentalism is a political movement as much as a religious one, with causes ads much economic and secular as religious. It is not something incomprehensible. Trying to understand it and condoning it are two different things.
To be quite honest, mears, I don't know why i'm bothering to type this, because I'm sure that all i'll get in repsonse is the usual 'with us or against us,' 'they're the enemy: we must kill them all' sloganeering that you and your political fellow-travellers are so good at. but it would be nice to be proved wrong, just the once.
Of course, we don't know who is responsible yet, so perhaps all of this speculation on Islamist violence is premature, although Islamist radicals do seem likely suspects so far
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
mears said:
What utter crap, Mears. "there's something different about islam to any other religion, its a violent and wicked faith, nuke mecca, nuke iran, kill the palestinians, kill dem fuckin ay-rabs, blah de fucking blah"
What about the bombs by the sikhs that killed those poeple in those, two cinemas in India about six weeks ago, or were you too stupid to notice? As for the Israeli shit like I said before I don't want to hear any more of that shit. People are always going to pick up on whatever rumours they can find and twist it around into blaming the Jews, for fucks sake i wouldn't be surprised if some utter cunt decided to blame it on homosexuals, whatever they can think of, it does nobody any good and it's just hateful, it was obvious nobody knew about these attacks at all as opposed to September 11th which the US government DID know about.
Roadkill said:
Well, that makes a change from your usual closed mind approach to 911.
The government and the mainstream media are dropping the AQ terror brand name all over the place. They are the ones who seem to have made up their minds already that "it was AQ wot done it, honest gov" and no doubt are set hard to help the general public make up their minds in the same way too. As for my own position, well it rests on asking important questions such as cui bono? and setting events in historical context. It is not difficult to see that greater political capital accrues from this latest atrocity to reactionary imperialism, than it does to that mythical gang of rag bag Islamic fanatics called al-Qaeda, led by a known CIA asset.
Well that depends on how you define "never".
Roadkill elsewhere said:
Clearly, then, you are trying here to cast your judgement on the available evidence, in the glowing light of your presumed 'expertise' "as a historian". So I think it's more than fair to say that you did set yourself up, don't you?
editor
hiraethified
Anyone making fact-free claims that yesterday's attacks were the work of the CIA/M15/FBI whatever will find their posts deleted, closely followed by a swift banning if they continue to post up their offensive evidence free conspiraloon fantasies.
They're still digging the bodies out of the ground for fuck's sake.
They're still digging the bodies out of the ground for fuck's sake.
Dissident Junk
picking oakum
Who is responsible?
The people that made and delivered the bombs.
Beyond that, there are so many different dynamics and influences that we could argue anyone is responsible: from Blair to Bush to Hussain to Qutb to Mrs Jenkins that lives down the road that didn't cast her vote in the last election.
I think this piece in the Times is very interesting.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html
However, there is a danger of a repeat of a McVeigh-type scenario; one must be cautious when stating who may be responsible.
The people that made and delivered the bombs.
Beyond that, there are so many different dynamics and influences that we could argue anyone is responsible: from Blair to Bush to Hussain to Qutb to Mrs Jenkins that lives down the road that didn't cast her vote in the last election.
I think this piece in the Times is very interesting.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html
However, there is a danger of a repeat of a McVeigh-type scenario; one must be cautious when stating who may be responsible.
editor
hiraethified
I mean the same kind of conspiraloon shit that you and a few obsessed others have polluted these boards with over the past four years while proving absolutely nothing.bigfish said:
I know it's an alien concept to conspiraloons, but have you ever considered holding back while investigations are underway instead of just spewing out the usual wild, groundless, knee-jerk fact-free speculation?
editor, yesterday was an emotional time, for this poster, and I suspect the moderation team also.editor said:
I know you don't want these forums to be 'thought-policed'. And we are here to exchange views.
At present there is little to go on, but it's surely natural for people to start wondering about who was responsible?
Peace
editor
hiraethified
Indeed. But if anyone starts making bold, fact-free conspiraloon claims that it was an inside job, they can fuck right off to some traffic-free fruitloop geocities site where they'll no doubt be grateful to meet a fellow nutjob.DrJazzz said:
Even Indymedia is deleting such shite.
Well, that's my opinion too. I'm not seeking any fights though at an emotional time. I certainly don't have proof for my opinion, any more than Tony Blair has the slightest to blame it on 'people following Islam' which he made on national television.
But I'm sure we can agree that yesterday's attacks were a cowardly, criminal act - whoever was buying the explosive.
Why don't we all cut each other some slack here? As a fellow Londoner, this is not the time to be making divisions amongst ourselves.
But I'm sure we can agree that yesterday's attacks were a cowardly, criminal act - whoever was buying the explosive.
Why don't we all cut each other some slack here? As a fellow Londoner, this is not the time to be making divisions amongst ourselves.
bigfish said:
Just because I reject your certainties about it, doesn't mean my approach is 'closed-minded.'
Who benefits? A lot of people. Yes, 'reactionary imperialism' does benefit from the fall-out, but that could be as much through spotting an opportunity and taking it, or even allowing things to happen (and I'm not setting that up specifically as a hypothesis on what happened yesterday) to reap the benefits. But then, other people benefit too. From the point of view of various radical Islamist sects killing people and spreading fear are benefits in themselves. They've also a supoprt base to look to, and showing that they can perpetrate attacks of this sort helps to shore that up.
No it doesn't. It was a categorical statement: I have never set myself up as resident expert or resident historian in any way, shape or form. You're desperately keen to maintain that particular fiction, however...
You are casting your judgement in the light of your presumed expertise on conspiracies, elites and the exercise of power. You're vulnerable yourself to all the charges you're trying to lay at my door. I repeat: it's interesting how you feel the need to resort to insults and character assassinations against perceived chalengers before you've even advanced a hypothesis of your own on what happened to defend.
What annoys me about conspiracy theorists is the certainty. You're convinced from the outset that the official version must be a pack of lies, and you will defend any alternative hypothesis no matter how improbable and how little evidence there is to suport it, or how much piles up against it. There's no arguing with you, because nothing;'s a matter of conjecture: you know, and that's an end to it. That's why I try not to get involved in your conspiracy threads: I've neither time or inclination to indulge in the kind of ever decreasing circles, going round and round one or two points of detail with increasing heat and acrimony, that they always descend into.
It's also depressing because, as I seem to remember saying on the thread from which you've very selectively quoted me, I pointed out that I'd raise serious questions about 9/11, mainly centred on who knew beforehand. A sensible discussion of such points would be interesting. But I'm afraid I have my doubts about whether it's possible, because it would soon get swamped with improbable theories about radio-controlled 'planes and the like, and anyone who tried to debunk those fantasies would be hounded out and condemned as a brainwashed media dupe.
Having said all that, I'm not going to go any further with this so please don't bother replying.
districtline
Well-Known Member
i like islam. it's the only religion you cant question.
their countries are all poor (name me one wealthy muslim country where the wealth doesnt come from oil) and their people are fleeing in thousands to the west.
hm, i wonder why. but then again, you cant question islam. you're a fuckwit then.
their countries are all poor (name me one wealthy muslim country where the wealth doesnt come from oil) and their people are fleeing in thousands to the west.
hm, i wonder why. but then again, you cant question islam. you're a fuckwit then.
Not only do we not know who perpetrated the 7/7 London Bombings (the numerologists are already having a field day 
) but it's worth reminding ourselves of some other bombings where we haven't a clue who did it...
"The London bombings remind me of the Madrid, Istanbul, and Bali bombings. No one is ever caught. Stereotypically rabid Arabs are blamed. And innocent people everywhere suffer the consequences." John Kaminsky
) but it's worth reminding ourselves of some other bombings where we haven't a clue who did it..."The London bombings remind me of the Madrid, Istanbul, and Bali bombings. No one is ever caught. Stereotypically rabid Arabs are blamed. And innocent people everywhere suffer the consequences." John Kaminsky
Similar threads
- Locked