who is responsible for the London attacks?

[DaveCinzano]

Its a problem Americans and the rest of the world must deal with. Most Americans are law abiding, good people in my opinion. As are most people in our world. But they have a cancer amongst some of their people. One that is intolerant to other non-Christian religions and poor people. They blow up whole cities like Fallujah, and tell poor people they can't eat for instance. They have governments resembling the Al Capone Gang in Chicago.

They are holding themselves back, not the rest of the world.

And besides, talk about poor and bad governing systems, just look at Mexico.

But as I keep saying Mexicans are not engaged in world wide terrorsim.

Why are some Americans?

class

 

[Stibs]

Islamic terrorism is the next war North America and Europe must face together.

Who is an Islamic terrorist we should negotiate with, Osama Bin Laden?

The last, and one of the biggest, terrorist outrages commited in Northeren Ireland was the Omagh bomb. It was aimed directly at civilians (unlike most of the earlier bombs) and it was planted by a group who had splintered away from the Provisional IRA. By the time the bomb went off, the Provos had already entered into discussions with the government and the deaths were an embaressment to them.

The people who planted the bomb were extremists who believed that PIRA had sold out to the English. The government never negotiated with them because it never had to. The Real IRA, as they called themselves, had already been isolated by the UK's decision to remove the reasonable grievances that caused people to support republican violence. That bomb wa the first and last that they planted. With no support, and feeling the displeasure of PIRA, they disappeared and it is only recently that someone has been put on trial for the carnage.

Every year, the US gives political and financial support to Israel so that it can continue its murderous oppression of the Palestinian people. All they want is a reasonable settlement and a state to call their own. While the Oslo accord was in operation, and the move towards a two state solution was being pursued, there were no terrorist attacks in Israel. Since the Israelis welched on their deal and started smashing up the PA, there have been several thousand deaths.

As I said, the bombers who hit London have (if the claim is real) given US/UK intervention in Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan as the motivation for their crime.

And, whilst I would like to see these scumbags shot, I would also like to see Donald Rumsfeld shot.

Because, if the UK removes itself from the orbit of the US as it smashes its way across the Middle East and Central Asia for the sake of its own energy security, then I believe, and I think it is the belief of most of my compatriots, we will be much, much safer (as will the Middle East)

 

[phildwyer]

Your average right-wing American is isolated by distance from this sort of thing, Cedar Rapids is unlikely to be a target any time soon. So they can enjoy their SUV and their war-gasms.

Anti-American bollocks Bernie, unworthy of you. The average American is far more closely affected by the war than the average Brit, since he is much more likely to have a friend or family member fighting in Iraq. And a higher proportion of the UK electorate voted for Blair than did the Americans for Bush. The British population is more culpbable than the Americans, and everyone who voted Labour in the last election has major bloody blood on their hands. I hope they remember that next time before they get indignant at the people of the USA.

 

[bigfish]

The London Bombings by Dave Stratman

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3324

tnet July 9, 2005

The terror bombings in London of July 7 differ from the atrocities committed against the people of Iraq only in scale. In Iraq well over 100,000 people have been butchered by the US/UK killing machine. In London as many as 50 people were killed and hundreds injured. In both cases the killed and injured are the victims of actions designed to terrorize, demobilize, and control innocent people.

We do not yet know who is responsible for the atrocities in London. Responsibility has been claimed by a shadowy “Secret Organization of al-Qaida,” and perhaps that organization is indeed responsible. Far more likely, however, is that security elements of the British or US governments are the real perpetrators. Why do we suggest this? Three reasons: 1) Security in London was at unprecedented heights for the G-8 summit at Gleneagle; such a sophisticated, coordinated attack on three different underground lines and one bus would have been extremely difficult to carry out without active cooperation from the security services. 2) The weight of evidence that the 9/11 attack on the US was planned by the US government suggests the likelihood that this attack has a similar genesis–that is, that it originated from deep within ruling circles of “the Allies.” 3) In solving any crime, one must first ask, “Cui bono?”–”Who benefits?” The beneficiaries of this attack are Tony Blair and George Bush–or so they hope. 9/11 was George Bush’s “Pearl Harbor” that turned him overnight from clown to “war-time leader,” rallied the country behind him, and allowed him to launch two long-planned wars of aggression. Tony Blair, whose political support is at rock-bottom because of his support for the war in Iraq, desperately needs rehabilitation. He is using the time-honored method of political leaders: posing as stalwart protector of a people under attack.

 

[Jo/Joe]

But Jo/Joe didn't say what he think happened, and neither have you!

I said it bore the hallmarks of an Al-Q (or affiliate) attack. Weren't you reading?

There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Far more likely, however, is that security elements of the British or US governments are the real perpetrators.

This is just a Chomsky wannabe spouting pure bollocks.

 

[oi2002]

The last, and one of the biggest, terrorist outrages commited in Northeren Ireland was the Omagh bomb. It was aimed directly at civilians (unlike most of the earlier bombs) and it was planted by a group who had splintered away from the Provisional IRA. By the time the bomb went off, the Provos had already entered into discussions with the government and the deaths were an embaressment to them.

Omagh was part of a RIRA campaign of attacks aimed at economic targets. They'd previously bombed the center of mainly Protestant towns like N"Ards without inflicting serious casualties. RIRA had a history relying on unskilled freestaters. RIRA claimed they did not plan it as a mass casualty bombing but muffed the warning call. I'm inclined to believe them; it would be odd to choose a border country town with a mixed population for a change of tactics. It doesn't make it any less of a crime.

Avoiding getting nabbed, killing yourself or lots of other people in a car bombing campaign is difficult. PIRA got very good at what they did, calibrating the use of atrocity for political ends.

One of the reasons the new wave of Jihadis are so frightening is not that they lack moral constraints, that old-skool terrorists had such scruples is a fiction, but that they are mostly chaotic amateurs. You don't need much tradecraft to stage their spectaculars.

 

[mears]

Anyone want to make a stab at it? Many people the world over feel slighted in some fashion. But only Islamic extremeists are killing in our countries. Countries which let them in to earn a decent living and send billions to their home countries in remittances by the way. Countries like the UK and the US where many of them have built a middle class life style they could never achieve in their homland because of the corruption and incompetence of their leaders.

Africans, Arabs, Mexicans andChinese have come to our countries and most never look back.

Only Arab immigrants are trying to kill western civilians.

Not others from third world countries. Not black Africans, Indians or Chinese.

Only some Arabs.

Why is that?

 

[In Bloom]

Anyone want to make a stab at it? Many people the world over feel slighted in some fashion. But only Islamic extremeists are killing in our countries. Countries which let them in to earn a decent living and send billions to their home countries in remittances by the way. Countries like the UK and the US where many of them have built a middle class life style they could never achieve in their homland because of the corruption and incompetence of their leaders.

Africans, Arabs, Mexicans andChinese have come to our countries and most never look back.

Only Arab immigrants are trying to kill western civilians.

Not others from third world countries. Not black Africans, Indians or Chinese.

Only some Arabs.

Why is that?

Because they're filthy ragheads, duh

 

[layabout]

Anyone want to make a stab at it? Many people the world over feel slighted in some fashion. But only Islamic extremeists are killing in our countries. Countries which let them in to earn a decent living and send billions to their home countries in remittances by the way. Countries like the UK and the US where many of them have built a middle class life style they could never achieve in their homland because of the corruption and incompetence of their leaders.

Africans, Arabs, Mexicans andChinese have come to our countries and most never look back.

Only Arab immigrants are trying to kill western civilians.

Not others from third world countries. Not black Africans, Indians or Chinese.

Only some Arabs.

Why is that?

I've reported your post to the police as valuable lead in the hunt for the terrorists.

I think your post is the most fucking stupid I've ever read on here.

 

[layabout]

"Hello officer, yes, good evening. Some bloke on Urban75 has got a clue as to the identity of the terrorists! You can rule out Pakistanis, Kurds, Turks, British, Afghans, Chechens etc. He know's for sure, that they are an arab bunch."

 

[oi2002]

...Only Arab immigrants are trying to kill western civilians...Only some Arabs.

Why is that?

If you read Marc Sageman on Jihadis you might have a clue. He's profiled 500 of them.

...The above findings refute the conventional wisdom about terrorists. The global Salafi terrorists were generally middle-class, educated young men from caring and religious families, who grew up with strong positive values of religion, spirituality, and concern for their communities. They were truly global citizens, conversant in three or four languages, and skilled in computer technology. One of the striking findings of this sample is that three-fourths of the terrorists joined the jihad as expatriates, mostly as upwardly mobile young men studying abroad. At the time, they were separated from their original environment. An additional ten percent were second generation in the West, who felt a strong pull for the country of their parents. So a remarkable 84% were literally cut off from their culture and social origins. They were homesick, lonely, and alienated. Although they were intellectually gifted, they were marginalized, underemployed and generally excluded from the highest status in the new society.
...
So far, this account has neglected the religious ideological contribution to the transformation of alienated young Muslims into fanatical terrorists. The specific interpretation of Islam that promoted this violent strategy with respect to the United States played a crucial role in this transformation. It provided the script to follow for these distressed cliques of men. But very few mosques worldwide preached this aberrant strategy to transform society using the utopian Salafi community as a model. Indeed, about ten mosques worldwide generated about 50 percent of my sample. This is a very small number, suggesting that the global Salafi jihad is a small collection of localized networks of people, rather than a more widely and randomly distributed one.
...
This trajectory from low-risk participation with an increasingly closer set of friends, to medium-risk proselytism for an ideal way of life, to high-risk terrorist activities is a progressive and insidious one. This progression embraces an ideology that frames activism as a moral obligation demanding self-sacrifice and unflinching commitment to the jihad. This particular interpretation of Islam stands apart in challenging the validity of mainstream Islamic faith and practices, and it isolates the new adherents to this doctrine. Their self sacrifice is again grounded in group dynamics. The terrorist is ready to show his devotion to his now exclusive friends, their group, and their cause by seeking death as a way to show his devotion to all of them. In-group love combined with out-group hate is a strong incentive for committing mass murder and suicide.

Know your enemy before you decide how to fight him. Sageman's sample of Jihadis are men soured by hollow modernity. They are reacting against the broad sweep of globalization and this is the very strategy that DC has chosen, or more accurately boneheadly persisted in, as a solution.

Sageman concludes:

Any attempt to engage in a war of ideas raises the specter of disinformation or propaganda. But the United States cannot afford to concede this ideological war, waged on the battlefield of interpretations, to the militant Islamists. It needs to develop a coherent and comprehensive strategy to deal with this new and unique threat. This involves discrediting the legitimacy of the leaders and the ideology behind the global Salafi jihad and replacing it with an inspiring vision of a just and fair partnership with Islam. Unfortunately, the United States is poorly set up to wage such a war. Our free media broadcasts statements targeted for domestic consumption which angers international audiences, for in politics the domestic agenda will always trump foreign concerns.

Such an ideological war would also require the United States to regain the credibility that it has lost in the Muslim world in the past four years because of its lack of evenhandedness in the Israeli-Palestinian problem, its invasion of Iraq on false premises, and its support of repressive Muslim regimes. U.S. words, public diplomacy, would need to be matched with deeds to regain this lost trust and credibility. Otherwise, any statement, no matter how laudable, would simply be dismissed as hypocritical and further encourage the spread of the global Salafi jihad.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> But as I keep saying Mexicans are not engaged in world wide terrorsim.

Why are some Americans?

Nicely put.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Anti-American bollocks Bernie, unworthy of you. The average American is far more closely affected by the war than the average Brit, since he is much more likely to have a friend or family member fighting in Iraq. <snip>.

Hmm, OK. I see what you're saying. In terms of being blown up though, it's much more likely in London than Cedar Rapids, and I suppose I'm taking the implicit view that soldiers signed up to do a dangerous job on purpose, whereas British civilians were conscripted against their will.

 

[mears]

If you read Marc Sageman on Jihadis you might have a clue. He's profiled 500 of them.Know your enemy before you decide how to fight him. Sageman's sample of Jihadis are men soured by hollow modernity. They are reacting against the broad sweep of globalization and this is the very strategy that DC has chosen, or more accurately boneheadly persisted in, as a solution.

Sageman concludes:

Intreresting stuff. There is a civil war in the Islamic faith, no doubt about it. Eventhough the US is currently the worlds only superpower ultimately Arabs and those who practice Islam will have to work out these problems. Do they embrace modernity, or look to structure their societies on strict interpretations of the Koran?

If they follow the latter they will continue to fall further behind the west and the anger will grow. That is why a representative government in Iraq is so important. Its why the murderers blowing up barber shops and funeral processions can't win.

What do you think?

 

[krtek a houby]

Intreresting stuff. There is a civil war in the Islamic faith, no doubt about it. Eventhough the US is currently the worlds only superpower ultimately Arabs and those who practice Islam will have to work out these problems. Do they embrace modernity, or look to structure their societies on strict interpretations of the Koran?

If they follow the latter they will continue to fall further behind the west and the anger will grow. That is why a representative government in Iraq is so important. Its why the murderers blowing up barber shops and funeral processions can't win.

What do you think?

I think all religions (bar pagans and wicca, possibly) are capable of perverting their faith. And nobody ever wins. Ever.

 

[Signal 11]

thetruthseeker.co.uk

Multiples of 11 are often used by these satanists to send out a secret signal to each other in instances like these, almost like some kind of demonic smoke signal.[...]Why is the Number `11' important? Occultists believe it is an important number of the coming Antichrist.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think all religions (bar pagans and wicca, possibly) are capable of perverting their faith. And nobody ever wins. Ever.

what about jedi? d'you know of any (irl) who've gone over to the dark side?

 

[phildwyer]

Hmm, OK. I see what you're saying. In terms of being blown up though, it's much more likely in London than Cedar Rapids, and I suppose I'm taking the implicit view that soldiers signed up to do a dangerous job on purpose, whereas British civilians were conscripted against their will.

I'm not so sure that Cedar Rapids is particularly safe. Seems to me that the USA is extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack--its borders are more porous that the UK's, that's for sure. And 9/11 does rather dwarf 7/7. But anyway, I can assure you that Americans know very well they are in a war, to a far greater extent than Brits. Remember that many of the US troops in Iraq are National Guard and reserve, not career military. Those who haven't been sent yet, and most of them have, will be shortly. This war is affecting working-class America very immediately, and very considerably.

Ironically, that's the main reason Bush was re-elected. Imagine you have a child or a spouse fighting in Iraq. Who would you want as their commander in chief? Obviously someone who said they'd bring them home right away, but--guess what!--no such candidate is available. Failing that, you'd want someone who seemed committed and enthusiastic about winning the war. You wouldn't want some upper-class wanker who wasn't involved in planning the war and seems to have no idea about how to fight it. You'd vote for Bush, not Kerry. That's what a lot of my friends did, and I can't blame them--far less than a Brit who voted for Blair, in any case.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not so sure that Cedar Rapids is particularly safe. Seems to me that the USA is extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack--its borders are more porous that the UK's, that's for sure. And 9/11 does rather dwarf 7/7. But anyway, I can assure you that Americans know very well they are in a war, to a far greater extent than Brits. Remember that many of the US troops in Iraq are National Guard and reserve, not career military. Those who haven't been sent yet, and most of them have, will be shortly. This war is affecting working-class America very immediately, and very considerably.

Ironically, that's the main reason Bush was re-elected. Imagine you have a child or a spouse fighting in Iraq. Who would you want as their commander in chief? Obviously someone who said they'd bring them home right away, but--guess what!--no such candidate is available. Failing that, you'd want someone who seemed committed and enthusiastic about winning the war. You wouldn't want some upper-class wanker who wasn't involved in planning the war and seems to have no idea about how to fight it. You'd vote for Bush, not Kerry. That's what a lot of my friends did, and I can't blame them--far less than a Brit who voted for Blair, in any case.

how exactly was bush involved in the actual planning of the war? and he is an upper-class wanker.

judging by the way the war's going in iraq, bush doesn't have the slightest idea of how to prosecute it.

 

[phildwyer]

how exactly was bush involved in the actual planning of the war? and he is an upper-class wanker.

judging by the way the war's going in iraq, bush doesn't have the slightest idea of how to prosecute it.

Er, yes, you do have a point there. But Bush's backers did plan the war, and Americans still cling to the (not unreasonable) notion that they must have had *some* idea what they were doing. Kerry, on the other hand, had *no* ideas whatsoever. I still say anyone who said "troops out now," and meant it, would have won in a landslide.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm not so sure that Cedar Rapids is particularly safe. Seems to me that the USA is extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack--its borders are more porous that the UK's, that's for sure. And 9/11 does rather dwarf 7/7. But anyway, I can assure you that Americans know very well they are in a war, to a far greater extent than Brits. Remember that many of the US troops in Iraq are National Guard and reserve, not career military. Those who haven't been sent yet, and most of them have, will be shortly. This war is affecting working-class America very immediately, and very considerably.

Ironically, that's the main reason Bush was re-elected. Imagine you have a child or a spouse fighting in Iraq. Who would you want as their commander in chief? Obviously someone who said they'd bring them home right away, but--guess what!--no such candidate is available. Failing that, you'd want someone who seemed committed and enthusiastic about winning the war. You wouldn't want some upper-class wanker who wasn't involved in planning the war and seems to have no idea about how to fight it. You'd vote for Bush, not Kerry. That's what a lot of my friends did, and I can't blame them--far less than a Brit who voted for Blair, in any case.

What you say makes sense. I think it's time to start a "how the fuck do we get out of Iraq?" thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

What you say makes sense. I think it's time to start a "how the fuck do we get out of Iraq?" thread.

go4it

 

[oi2002]

Intreresting stuff. There is a civil war in the Islamic faith, no doubt about it. Eventhough the US is currently the worlds only superpower ultimately Arabs and those who practice Islam will have to work out these problems. Do they embrace modernity, or look to structure their societies on strict interpretations of the Koran?

If they follow the latter they will continue to fall further behind the west and the anger will grow. That is why a representative government in Iraq is so important. Its why the murderers blowing up barber shops and funeral processions can't win.

What do you think?

This is a revolutionary movement that like the Bolsheviks requires little popular support. I think these guys have embraced modernity and found it lacking. They don't think they are behind the West they think they are way out infront. This isn't about inequality or self-determination it's about a perception of Western decadence and a vision of the future without it. That they share with Mussolinis fascists. Nothing is written; they can win. More Western decadence may not be the answer.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

This is a revolutionary movement that like the Bolsheviks requires little popular support. I think these guys have embraced modernity and found it lacking. They don't think they are behind the West they think they are way out infront. This isn't about inequality or self-determination it's about a perception of Western decadence and a vision of the future without it. That they share with Mussolinis fascists. Nothing is written; they can win. More Western decadence may not be the answer.

You have a point about that. I was recently reading some philosophers who influenced the fascists, Julius Evola etc and they sound a hell of a lot like Bin Laden and quite a bit like various other opponents of compulsory global Disnification.

 

[likesfish]

the war went brilliantly an entire country taken in less than 30 days theres nothing on the planet that can stop the US military on a rampage.
stage two was where it all went to bollocks

 

[Bernie Gunther]

the war went brilliantly an entire country taken in less than 30 days theres nothing on the planet that can stop the US military on a rampage.
stage two was where it all went to bollocks

Well quite. All those $100 million a pop weapons systems are very impressive when they have targets. They don't anymore though. What they have is the strategic defence stage of a guerilla war rapidly moving into the stalemate stage in some parts of Iraq. Criminal gangs doing what they like, no jobs, no water, no electric, the few government services requiring huge security to barely work.

Meanwhile, it's becoming increasingly obvious that someone is simply stealing the Iraqi oil revenue. They aren't even metering the amount being pumped.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Just to add to the post above. At current prices, a reasonable estimate of Iraqi oil revenue is about $20 billion dollars a year. So that's about $50 billion by now. Unfortunately, nobody is totally sure where that money actually is.

If we want to get out of Iraq and leave behind a stable friendly government with real legitimacy among the Iraqi people, this probably isn't the best way.

 

[bigfish]

Anyone want to make a stab at it? Many people the world over feel slighted in some fashion. But only Islamic extremeists are killing in our countries. Countries which let them in to earn a decent living and send billions to their home countries in remittances by the way. Countries like the UK and the US where many of them have built a middle class life style they could never achieve in their homland because of the corruption and incompetence of their leaders.

Africans, Arabs, Mexicans andChinese have come to our countries and most never look back.

Only Arab immigrants are trying to kill western civilians.

Not others from third world countries. Not black Africans, Indians or Chinese.

Only some Arabs.

Why is that?

Yes, it does seem very odd that doesn't it mears. Why on Earth would only Arabs in particular buck the trend and turn suddenly like savages to bite the hand that feeds them?

I know! Is it because the largest and most productive oil fields in the world are located in the Persian Gulf region where many of the Arab peoples come from and so to create a suitable pretext for the theft of those resources, the Arabs are being set up?

 

[layabout]

what about jedi? d'you know of any (irl) who've gone over to the dark side?

There is no such thing as a dark jedi. When a jedi crosses to the dark side, a sith he becomes.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

mears is entirely representative of current US right-wing propaganda. I've been following it closely. They are really strongly pushing race wars and pogroms, and also trying to whip up a media outrage about various radical clerics and Ken Livingstone as somehow being responsible for these psychos.

The basic message from these racists though, is that Britons ought to hate and fear muslims because these bombings are exactly the sort of thing that muslims inevitably do. They just can't help hating us because we are free ...

Whatever we do, we mustn't try to examine the causes behind the deaths of 50-odd ordinary Londoners.