who is responsible for the London attacks?
- Thread starter mears
- Start date
Adorno boy
New Member
yield said:
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
districtline said:
Are you seriously claiming Turkey, hammering on the door to join the EU sharpish, is dirt poor?
How about Malaysia, a leading Muslim economy spearheading plans to 'liberalise' and 'grow' Muslim economies globally?
I don't see anyone challenging the right to 'question' Islam- but if the questions are as inanely pisspoor and implicitly bigoted as yours, then there's little point.
Langley lost control of the ISI a long time ago; even during the Soviet/Afghan war that tail had been wagging the dog.bigfish said:
However if I was going to point at a state actor implicated in the Jihad it probably would be the ISI and bits of the Gulf Kingships security services. Pakistan is about the only nation that's benefited from the Jihad and suddenly they've gone from being a dodgy, unstable, nuclear proliferator to DC's best buddy in the GWOT, billions in aid lots of nice US war tech etc.
But I don't see any need for state actors matter in all of this. Jihadi methods don't require much of network.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Who is responsible
Bush and Blair of course.
Bush and Blair of course.
Ae589 said:
It was much less brutal than many unsuccessful campaigns. More down to cleverly exploiting ethnic divisions among the insurgents, playing off the mostly-Chinese communists against the Malays, and some brilliant hearts-and-minds work. The real factor, IMHO, was that many British army officers were genuinely interested in the future welfare of the country, and experienced and knowlegable about its culture and history.
That was successful, it's not alone though.phildwyer said:
The 20th century is packed with failed terrorist campaigns/insurgencies. Authoritarian states were particularly prone to rebellions and crushed them regularly. The Syrian's at Hama for example.
If you define success as stopping the terrorist campaign the N.Ireland troubles looks to have ended successfuly for the British. The Red Brigades were subdued by the Italians mainly by subtley coopting the Communists against them.
To the former - subtract your sensationalitic terminology, and most people here probably agree that Western economic forces want control. Isn't that how it's always been?
To the latter part of your question -total lack of evidence? References to dodgy operations in Ireland are not evidence.
mears said:
I don't often post on these boards. I read and learn. Offer information if I have it. But sometimes, I just have to reply and its usually to one of your posts - because you are so willfully stupid.
I can't claim to know much about the world and although I can make a good educated guess about the people who planted the London bombs, I can't tell you who or what they were. I can tell you, however, that you are not going to beat them militarily.
How do I know? Because I lived through 20+ years of terrorist bombing in my country and I watched my government attempt to beat republican violence by employing more violence. It failed. Every Brit with two or more brain cells to rub together can tell you that. What succeeded was a genuine attempt to understand the root causes of the terrorism. The Catholics of Northern Ireland had been living under a regime which had removed their right to vote, benefit from social housing, receive equal treatment from the police, or even find a job. Having looked at those grievances, we found that they were actually quite reasonable. So, we "gave in to the terrorists" and we now do not fear republican bombs.
So, what did these terrorists claim is their motivation for this attack? Well, if the only people who are claiming it are the actual bombers, then their reason is:
OBL gave Palestine and the sanctions regime in Iraq as his reasons for 9/11. And I have to say that British and American intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have been disastrous. So it would seem that these terrorists' aims for US/UK foreign policy are very similar to mine - to let the people of the Middle East and Central Asia get on with their lives without the fear of being shot from an f16.
Brits have more experience of living with and solving terrorism than you could ever know, wallowing in your self-pitying narcissism after 9/11. This experience is real and affects our views as a nation. It has been explained to you before, many times - by myself amongst others. But you willfully continue to accuse people of either supporting terrorism or capitulating to it out of cowardice. I would suggest, at this time, that you keep such sentiments to yourself
'At one point Bin Laden and Zawahiri named 23 countries that deserved to be punished. All 23 have been hit'.
This is a quote from Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit. It is quoted in a column by Peter Taylor in today's guardian. Inevitably, a few people here will cry disinformation, but it can be very reasonably argued that yesterday's attack bear all the hallmarks of Al-Q, or an affiliated group.
Western leaders might benefit inthe short term, but their misuse of these events as propoganda will come undone in the end. That's been happening in the US and the UK already. A growing number of people just don't believe what Bush and Blair say.
Jo/Joe said:
Indeed, like the Istanbul bomb, it arrived extremely conveniently for our World Leaders. Then, it knocked the 2 million-strong Stop the War march off the front pages and gave Bush a chance to look statesmanslike in a country where he couldn't set foot on the pavement. It saved his bacon.
This time, it's again defused massive public outrage with Bush and Co. in town, over illegal war, climate change and Africa, the latter being a feel-good diversion to get our hopes up that they would do something useful (fat chance!). Conveniently, it didn't get in the way of the Olympic announcement. The timing was again perfect for Bush & Co.
As I noted in a thread yesterday, terrorist groups used to always claim responsibility - and I don't mean anonymous postings on websites, this is because the acts were their currency. Nowadays we have a new terrorism - there is no (proper) claim, and as John Kaminsky notes, the attacks are blamed on Arabs who are never brought to justice. Now are these the hallmarks of Al-Quaida, which is now held not to exist as a cohesive unit, or are these the hallmarks of something more sinister?
I think the tendency of "guilty until proven innocent" tends to apply on all sides, unfortunately, whether its "Arabs" or the "CIA" or whatever. People tend to have an "instinct on truth" in these matters, and look for evidence for their claim. I see many conspiracy theories, like some states, operating with these principles.
The world is turning mad ...
The world is turning mad ...
here's you go C66... from Yahoo! NewsCitizen66 said:Hey Jazzz, did you know they dropped the security threat level at the start of this week?
Some high-up copper said it on the news so don't ask for sauce thanks
But Anthony Glees, an intelligence specialist at Brunel University, said questions would be asked as to why the threat level was reduced shortly before Britain was due to host a Group of Eight summit of the world's most powerful leaders.
"They did downgrade the threat even though it was objectively quite clearly a time of heightened political interest. I think questions will be asked about it," he said.
sauce
Ah so terrorist attacks that appear to demonstrate the fuckwitted impotence of those protested against are now conducted their orders solely to thwart ineffectual non-violent protest marches. Well it's a theory.Dr Jazz said:
Not sure if Dubya would regard terrorists blowing up the capital of his main alliy in the GWOT as particularly beneficial to his arguments. But then he's probably one of those Lizard men and its hard to empathise with aliens...
I was responding to Citizen66, editor. In response to your earlier post, mears calls for a 'guess' in the title thread, so we are not at the fingerprints stage really. But one can discuss motive/opportunity, or look for coincidences with patterns of past attacks.
Have you a guess for mears?
Also, I find your term of address unbecoming.
Have you a guess for mears?
Also, I find your term of address unbecoming.
But you'll interpret any terrorist attack as convenient for world leaders. Your clear implication is that you believe Bush and co are responsible for these attacks, but again you have no evidence. This attack was timed with 'our world leaders' in mind. And how on earth have you established that this attack has diffused any feeling towards Bush and Blair?
What is it about Al_Q as a very decentralised and loose collection of terrorist cells with a single aim that is so hard for you to accept? Why can they not exist as an entity seperate from any western leader or agency? Why has our entire existance got to be a matrix like conspiracy?
You want a conspiracy of the type you describe to exist. It's almost faith like.
editor
hiraethified
Just answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. I've already stated my general belief.DrJazzz said:
I know that conspiraloons crave the publicity that popular sites like this offer to their laughable obsessions, but if you're just going to play games, then I'll have no qualms about binning all of these threads.
Either make your point and back it up with evidence or go post on one of those anonymous fruitloop sites that you like to reference so often.
Similar threads
- Locked