BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:36 PM

Carol, "western liberalism" is not the same as "liberal western governments"

You need to get some quality google time in.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:31 PM

MoH said:
Making out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a major part of the events leading up to the bombings is unconvincing sophistry

Well you may not be convinced but it certainly isn't sophistry.

I agree with you that it played a part, but, whether it played a major part is speculation ( a speciality of akenanon, but that's another story), secondly I would argue that it merely brought the attack forward in time.

There is plenty of evidence to show that these lunatics will attack anyone who doesn't agree with them anywhere, anytime.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:18 PM

It's not the US they hate, nor the UK, it's western liberalism

This may be true (and then again, it may not), however, the pool of available recruits, which grows ever larger with every act of aggression against Muslims by "liberal western" governments, are not thus motivated. They are becoming radicalized by the violence they see visited upon their loved ones, their countries, and their people by these very "liberal western" governments, and that is what is making them easy prey for the real extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:14 PM

carol the bombers were moslems. This is a fact. Their families have no problem agreeing with that fact.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:12 PM

Events don't just have one cause, bruce. There is a whole combination of circumstances and a chain of events leading up to something like 7/7. Making out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a major part of the events leading up to the bombings is unconvincing sophistry. I doubt very much if more than a handful of people actually believe that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 06:09 PM

Akenaton, who are you calling a bully you little pipsqueak.

Look you've tried it on once, failed, dug yourself a hole: why didn't you stay in it?

I said that we should be proud to be a main target, I didn't say we should be happy about it. This country has a history of standing up and being counted, we'd obviously be complete history if we counted on you standing up.

We shouldn't tolerate the intolerence of these pathetic people who wish to roll the clock back a thousand years and remove our freedoms, The freedoms that many people have given their lives to protect.

You may sit in your cozy little box beleiving that really they are just misunderstood scalliwags who will all of a sudden become friendly if Isreal gives up land, the US pulls out of Iraq, Salmon Rushdie repents, we ban all film making criticising eastern culture etc etc etc.

It's not the US they hate, nor the UK, it's western liberalism.

They are fascists, not so pure and not so simple, just where do you want to draw a line in the sand, because it has to be drawn, sooner or later

AS for D & C I think sometimes they cross the line in an "attempt to rationalise their subject", in my business we have a saying "the paralysis of analysis", i think it fits them quite well but your not in their league.

Take the verbal stick or leave, it's all the same to me, your lot have no more a monopoly of passion as you do of truth.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:58 PM

GUEST,MGT... you are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM

beardedbruce, you seem to be saying that all of those innocent civilians deserved to die because Saddam didn't jump when we told him to.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Truth
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM

I am not a hypcrite CarolC for saying that the terrorists in London and 9/11 were Moslem terrorists. They were and they are.

Your political correctness and denial of the subject along with sidestepping that this is the real issue in identifying who the enemy is will obviously result in more terrorism by miltiant Moslems. These are not peace loving people. They have to be stopped, destroyed, killed. And if it takes flushing them out of the peaceful group who share this dark ages religion that confuses it's followers, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:43 PM

CarolC,


I do not agree with your last statement.


ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the failure of Saddam to comply with his obligations under international law and the terms of the ceasefire.

AND because so many people out there failed to even suggest that perhaps Saddam should comply with the UN resolutions, while they told the world that the US should do nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:34 PM

tell that to the ones that sadam helped to an early pit.
bye now this subject is going nowhere[to much passion,not enough reason].
see yall in a diff thread maybe.
have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:22 PM

jpk, you are being melodramatic. What we need to do is correct our behavior. That's all.

beardedbruce, ALL of the people who died in Iraq died because of the US led invasion and occupation of that country, regardless of who killed them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:15 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Pax Americana Kills More Iraqis
From: beardedbruce - PM
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 06:04 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) -- U.S.-led forces, insurgents and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 civilians, police and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by Iraq Body Count, a U.S.-British non-government group.

Nearly half the deaths occurred in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq's 25 million people live, according to media reports that Iraq Body Count has surveyed.

The second-highest death toll was in the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja, where one in every 137 of the town's population has died violently.

Of the total, nearly 37 percent were killed by U.S.-led forces, according to the group.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount.reut/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:13 PM

...For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return...



Above is what the fairminded Carol wrote. Note that I condemn the war in Iraq---as to the rest of her thoughts---see my earliest post in this thread (on LONDON --9/11)   and my comment about running out of cheeks to turn. That sums it up.

We are not innocent vis a vis oil and other matters, but if some people have certain beliefs and want to live in tents, the desert, or other inhospitable places I believe they should be allowed to do so---at the same time they should allow those of us who have a different standard to do the same. Again---no more cheeks left to turn.

Carol:

--your favorite radio persona,


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 05:08 PM

ok carol i will just accept your contention that the us is responsible for all the ill's of the world,walk away shaking my head in wonder.marveling over a possition governed by passion and not reason.
now we should all just turn and walk away,as they stab our backs,an lop off our heads[its ok for them the little book says so].
don't

swing to hard mohamed,it might hurt.
aiso i can't imagen you not haveing an oppinion on anything.
have a nice day any way.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 04:55 PM

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm

"As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004...

...So far, in the "war on terror" initiated since 9-11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000+ in Iraq, but also 3,000+ civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on...

...Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide (see Table 1). Adding the official 9-11 death toll (as of October 29th 2003) brings the total to just under 3500...

...For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return...

One might ask how it is possible to claim that the deaths of some 4,500 civilians at the hands of paramilitaries demonstrates "utter contempt for innocent life" when the blood of some 14,000 innocents staining our own hands is considered noble and necessary. Tony Blair provided the following answer on 20th November, standing alongside George W Bush in London:

    'This terrorism is the 21st century threat. It is a war that strikes at the heart of all that we hold dear, and there is only one response that is possible or rational: to meet their will to inflict terror with a greater will to defeat it; to confront their philosophy of hate with our own of tolerance and freedom; and to challenge their desire to frighten us, divide us, unnerve us with an unshakeable unity of purpose; to stand side by side with the United States of America and with our other allies in the world, to rid our world of this evil once and for all.'

The claim that a strategy which produces 14,000 civilian deaths is the expression of a "philosophy of tolerance and freedom" is a claim which we find incomprehensible. Our incomprehension is shared, we believe, by the majority of the world's people."


GUEST,MGT, you are a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson's Truth
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 04:45 PM

"Carol and Diana, whether you agree with them or not always attempt to rationalise their subject."

That's complete bullshit.

Those two are the most irrational here. They pull any common sense here to a new low in the guise of an arguement moron to moron.

Girls. The "bombers" WERE Moslem terrorists. Not Catholic terrorsts, Hindu terrorists, or even terrorists from another planet. Just like on 9/11, they were MOSLEM terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 01:11 PM

Wolfgang - I quoted Robert Pape to show you that even conservatives disagree with Blair's remark that the London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq. Just because I quoted him doesn't mean I like him or that I appove of everything he has to say.

Random thoughts referred to my first post. At that point, nothing was coherent.

Get off my case, Wolfgang, and make your point with clarity and cohesiveness. I will read it with a grain of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 12:51 PM

On the More Galloway thread I expressed the opinion that Blair's policy in Iraq was responsible for bringing the suicide bombers onto the streets of London and making the UK a target for terrorism.

Shakey responded with the remark that "We should be proud to be the No1 terget for the fundamentalist terrorists".
I wonder if the families of the dead in London feel the same pride as Shakey.

To me there is little difference between the sentiments expressed by
Shakey and those held by the suicide bombers.

Shakey stated that he saw Carol, Diana and "others" on this forum as "dangerous", in reality it is people like Shakey who are dangerous with their dogmatic fight to the death mentality.

The best post on this thread in my opinion came from McGrath, who said
"Trying to understand why something is happening, is not the same as condoning or accepting it"

Carol and Diana, whether you agree with them or not always attempt to rationalise their subject.

Shakey on the other hand appears an ignorant bully with little of value to say about terrorism and its causes, and what he does say seems destructive and dangerous.

In many ways he reminds me of the late un-lamented Teribus....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:57 AM

Wow, so you don't know everything after all.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:51 AM

It floats my boat

Is that what they're calling it these days?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:47 AM

It floats my boat

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:45 AM

You certainly have a right to disagree with me, Shakey. But sarcasm doesn't really help you to communicate your disagreement with any kind of coherency.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:40 AM

Would you like a spade?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:35 AM

Try to read the exact words, Shakey. "Most" in this case is important. It does not mean "exactly the same". I will also add this distinction... "between the two entities in question, 'the terrorists' and a sovereign state (the US), the behavior of the US most closely resembles that of the Germans and Japanese during WWII".

And it does.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:16 AM

"I would not excuse the behavior of the Germans or the Japanese during WWII, which by the way, the behavior of the US, with it's invasion of a sovereign country that didn't pose an imminent threat, most closely resembles."

I feel a macism coming on...

You cannot be serious

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:11 AM

Wrong on all counts, jpk.

I have no position on JFK other than that he was a politician and I have no doubt that he committed some horrible crimes. I know LBJ committed some horrible crimes. I have mixed feelings about Nixon.

I would not excuse the behavior of the Germans or the Japanese during WWII, which by the way, the behavior of the US, with it's invasion of a sovereign country that didn't pose an imminent threat, most closely resembles. I do not "exuse" the behavior of terrorists. I only try to show how we are helping to create the problem of terrorism with our behavior, rather than to help eliminate it.

Enjoy your smugness now, Wolfgang... you'll have reason to feel differently soon enough, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:31 AM

Something to consider is the effect the bombings must have had on the people of London. The people who live there are the ones who deserve the time and space to work out how to deal with it all, without being ripped apart by a cacophany people with bones to pick.

it's like what brucie says about people who crowd around ambulance scenes like vultures.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:54 AM

Oh, these guilty pleasures and smiles when scanning this thread:

Seeing Carol and Dianavan quoting approvingly from The American Conservative

Seeing them praising the extreme conservative expert Robert Pape of Bombing to win fame. Before the Iraq war (Novemeber 2001) he was quoted: University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape, author of the book Bombing to Win, thinks the air war might take as long as a year — which may be a lot longer than the American people would support. . Give me Bobert for a change.

Seeing Dianavan describing her thoughts as 'random thoughts'. Well, I know what that expression means; but imagine the pleasure of reading 'random' in a verbatim sense as for instance 'lacking coherence'. I wouldn't have dared to say that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:08 AM

More often than not, when people talk about the importance of being "100 per cent against terrorism", they then go on to indicate some exception for some variety of terrorism they happen to see as justifiable, such as that carried out by governments.

Trying to understand why something is happening is not the same as accepting and condoning it. That applies as much to acts of terror carried out by dissidents as it does to acts of terror carried out by governments.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 05:58 PM

ps carolc;i wonder how you would excuse the kraut's and jap's behavior during[aswell as prior to] ww2,and that it was all the us's fault.
oh please don't call them japs and krauts,you might hurt there self essteam,and feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: jpk
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 05:53 PM

let me guess a little bit here carolc,i bet that you just adored jfk,you thought that johnson was ok because of his civil rights stance,that you abhoared nam,and nixon because of nam,you blessed watergate for doing away with that warmongering nixon.hay a nice d'y ay'w'y.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:20 AM

Guest FG - You said, "by Mudcatters like CarolC and Dianavan. Terrorists are absolved as long as they are seen as weak or desperate, and their enemy is viewed as a cruel Goliath."

At no time have I absolved terrorists from their criminal acts. To find a solution, the problem must be understood. Yes, I do try to find what motivates them and try not to get sidetracked by blanket statements issued by our lying and corrupt politicians. In this 'war against terrorism', nobody is right. Just because I criticize Bush and Blair, doesn't mean I'm defending terrorism.

You seem to think everything is black and white. I happen to think that there are many shades of grey.

I'd appreciate it if you could stick to the discussion and quit making this personal. Take your mask off make your argument without taking pot shots and distorting the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:19 AM

I agree with carol in as much that Isreal has to give land back but I'm not convinced that this would make Isreal a safe place. As with Cuba there's not much chance that the US would ever settle while a lunatic was in power but now he's gone they really should do more.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:09 AM

So if the US and UK governments go away, so will the Israel problems, I dont think so.

I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. I don't think anybody has suggested that any governments should go away. But I do think it would be constructive to for these governments make some changes in the way they do things.

However, if you are saying that if Israel corrects the way it does things, the problem of terrorism against it will not go away, I disagree with you on that point. I'm not saying that no terrorist act will ever be committed aginast Israel ever again, if it corrects its behavior. But I am saying that if Israel ends the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (and ends the appropriation of the water resources of these areas), terrorism against Israel will, at the very least, become an extremely rare occurance.

But if you would rather not talk about Israel, that would suit me just fine.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 10:56 AM

Carol wrote:

" But I have addressed the subject of this thread, which is not just the bombings in London, but is actually about whether or not the governments of the US and Britain are responsible for 9/11 and the recent bombings in London. I don't think I necessarily agree with Peter's original premise, but I do think it's worth looking at how the behavior of these two governments contributes to the problem. And that IS the subject of this thread."

Well I've read it and re-read it but bugger me I can't find anything wrong with it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 10:50 AM

So if the US and UK governments go away, so will the Israel problems, I dont think so.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 10:32 AM

Not at all, Guest,19 Jul 05 - 10:02 AM. How about you? If people don't want to talk about Israel in this thread, all they have to do is not bring it up. I know I haven't.

But I have addressed the subject of this thread, which is not just the bombings in London, but is actually about whether or not the governments of the US and Britain are responsible for 9/11 and the recent bombings in London. I don't think I necessarily agree with Peter's original premise, but I do think it's worth looking at how the behavior of these two governments contributes to the problem. And that IS the subject of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 10:23 AM

Sorry guest but the "you and your view are as valuable as mine" attitude is what is getting the west into the trouble that it's in. Political correctness gone crazy, tolerating the intolerable. The furthest I can go is "your right to hold your view is as valuable as my right to hold mine". It's childish nonsense to even suggest that all views are equal.

At the risk of becoming pythonesque and stating the bleedin' obvious will you accept the view that it's fair to torture children because you think they are posessed by devils: is this a "valuable view"?

You spell well for a Guardian reader.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 10:02 AM

Was this a thread about the recent bombing in London? Are you so determined to prove a point about Israel that you are not addressing the issues of this thread? Are you getting stuck into anyone who has a different view? Do you consider yourself right, and everyones else to be ignorant?

Are You a "Right-Fighter"?

Do you find yourself needing to "win" arguments? Do people ask you why you always have to be right? Does conflict you engage in typically end with you having the last word, but no one feels good about the argument? If you have said yes to any of these questions, you are likely a right-fighter!

A right-fighter is someone who needs to win arguments. To be seen as right, you also NEED to make someone else seem wrong. A right-fighter gets overly emotional or angry when people do not agree with them and their opinions or beliefs. A right-fighter is someone who insists on having the last word in an argument or refuses to back down no matter what.

People who are right-fighters, (or those who are driven by the need to be right), have their value or worth literally attached to the outcome of being right. The "right-fighter" desperately believes (unconsciously) that others must agree with her to feel ok about him/herself.
   
Right-Fighting is an acceptable form of violence or aggression. Because the right-fighting pattern usually ends up one sided and includes a winner and a loser, the effects are similar to those of physical abuse. Learned submission on the part of the children and often the other parent/spouse is inevitable. "Right-Fighting" is in fact a form of emotional abuse.

If you have found that you may have some qualities of a right- fighter, don't start beating yourself up, begin working on it! You are a wonderful and lovable person with far more positive qualities than negative... this is certain! This habit does NOT have to define you. You are capable of releasing this habit at any time (please seek help if you need it, a partner in change is always a wonderful gift to yourself and your family!). Acknowledging your habit of right-fighting and becoming aware when you are engaging in this habit is the first, most important step in leading a more successful and happy life.

"Right-fighters": Begin to gently remind yourself of your unchanging value and worth during arguments and disagreements, whether or not you fully believe it. "Fake it till you make it"! Begin to imagine what conflict would be like if the outcome was not important. Begin to allow others to hold one opinion and you another without having ill or hurt feelings. What would life be like to be loved, cared for and respected rather than being "right"? Try validating others' opinions as equally valuable. This doesn't mean you must agree, only to say "yes" you and your view are as valuable as mine". I promise you, peace will begin to flow into your life....

Meanwhile, back in London..

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 09:58 AM

Paul Berman has a theory about the demonization of Israel in the face of the terrorist slaughter. For those who believe a rational logic governs the world, he argues, the only way to make sense of such acts is to portray Israel as deserving the punishment. And so, terrorism is explained and forgiven. Just look at the thousands of posts by CarolC on the topic over the past several years on Mudcat.

Israel doesn't deserve punishment. Nobody does. But Israel is directly responsible for the situation it finds itself in (as is the US), and it needs to acknowlege and correct this if it ever wants to see an end to the problem of terrorism. Demonizing me isn't going to solve the problem. It just provides you and others like you with a handy scapegoat so you won't have to deal with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 09:57 AM

Oh my God statistics. We have the system that we have, is it perfect? No. Is it the same for everyone? Yes.

Now you start talking about a sport. Sorry but this isn't a game, peoples lives are at stake. I will continue to have a go at any apologist for terror that I come across. I'm not saying you are, but they exist on this forum and I'll have a go at their arguments and their motives in equal measure.

I have always thought that Blair is a decent bloke but as far as this subject is concerned he swung it totally with his speach to the US senate in 2003. Unlike carol I can't be bothered to copy and paste all day long if you want to read it then read it if you don't, don't.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: GUEST,FG
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 09:49 AM

We have all learned the ritual. First come the explosions, the grief, the unbelief. How could anyone do such a thing to innocent men and women? Then, as predictably as the sound of emergency sirens follows a terrorist blast, come the calls for Muslim leaders to condemn the bombings.

When will Muslims rise up against terrorism, Westerners ask on both sides of the Atlantic. This will end, we are told, only when Muslim leaders make it clear to their people that suicide bombings constitute an affront to their humanity and their God.

All true, no doubt. But there is a secret about terrorism that nobody dares to mention: Westerners themselves, for all their sound and fury, have not wholeheartedly condemned terrorism. Not really. Not with the unequivocal conviction they now demand of Muslims.

The secret we have all heard with our own ears is that until now, terrorism, in its most frequent guise - against Israelis and Iraqis - is analyzed, explained, and all but forgiven by Europe's mainstream, by more than a few people in North America and by Mudcatters like CarolC and Dianavan. Terrorists are absolved as long as they are seen as weak or desperate, and their enemy is viewed as a cruel Goliath.

How could a young British Muslim growing up in Leeds, England, come to believe that a suicide bombing is an appropriate way to express a grievance? Very simple. He would watch the news. He would listen to the way British thinkers respond to bombings of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, and to how terrorist attacks in Iraq are described.

In much of Europe, suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians do not receive anything remotely resembling the blanket condemnation demanded of Muslims after July 7.

This is not to argue that Israeli tactics must be embraced, or that the objectives of Palestinians must be rejected. But if the British want to tell the world - especially people living within their borders - that terrorism is wrong, they have to declare without nuance and equivocation that attacks designed and executed for the deliberate purpose of murdering civilians for political goals are morally wrong and completely unacceptable - always - no matter the victims, the perpetrators or the political views of either side. That is plainly not what has happened until now.

When the wave of suicide bombings slaughtering Israelis reached its most gruesome depths in 2002, with almost weekly bombings shattering lives and leaving human body parts strewn in cafes, buses and restaurants throughout Israel, the British took to the streets, and CarolC posted endlessly on Mudcat, to condemn Israel and express their sympathy for Palestinians. The terrorist bombings, by all appearances, were a huge success.

One year later, Mohammed Sadiq Khan travelled from London to Tel Aviv and helped organize a nightclub bombing that killed three Israelis. Then he returned to London and blew himself up in the July 7 attacks.
After the London bombings, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke told an emergency meeting of European ministers that the right not to be bombed to bits outweighs any other civil liberty.

That's now. But in April 2002, when Israelis were going out of their minds with grief and fear, the European public reacted with massive street demonstrations condemning Israel's admittedly draconian efforts to stop the bloodshed, and demanding that Israelis give in to Palestinian demands. Condemnation of anti-Israel terrorism was not high on the agenda.

What message would a young impressionable Muslim glean from such an event? If you feel strongly about a cause, blow yourself up. People will pay attention. They will agree with you, and your cause will benefit.

Paul Berman has a theory about the demonization of Israel in the face of the terrorist slaughter. For those who believe a rational logic governs the world, he argues, the only way to make sense of such acts is to portray Israel as deserving the punishment. And so, terrorism is explained and forgiven. Just look at the thousands of posts by CarolC on the topic over the past several years on Mudcat.

The British, and much of Europe, have grown so tolerant of terrorism that they refuse to call it by its real name. The policy of the BBC, and the London-based news agency Reuters, is not to use the word "terrorist" unless quoting someone else's words.

Even if you don't label it, bombing a train full of commuters is terrorism. And if you want to tell the world terrorism is wrong, you have to say exactly that. Otherwise, you'll find yourself wondering, how could it happen here?

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 09:20 AM

Blair's "massive majority" was an artifact created by a distorted electoral system, together with a virtually defunct opposition party.He received the lowest share of the actual vote of any party wining a majority in nearly two centuries. 36% of the vote, equivalent to 22% of the electorate.

I see the proponents of the "Forget the ball - go for the man," style of argument are still puffing around the pitch. (Except it tends to be "go for the woman".)

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:31 PM

We are easily distrated by assumptions.
We are distracted by the soap opera news reports about who did what - SEE THE BACKPACKS - ITS THEM!

You should not be distracted by the rules of war or how much torture is too much torture. You should only be concerned with War itself. This current war is one in which we have been assured will be a long, on going, and some seem to think, a never ending war.

All war waltzes in on a lie. Every war is promised to end a dispute once and for all or even be the war to end all wars. The Bush wars promise freedom and peace and democracy. Well after about 20 years starting with Desert Storm, where is it? That's right its still coming with no time table to gum up the works.

War promises it will deliver the goods.
But it never does.
The enemy is war itself.

I hear intelligent people rationalizing why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. "To get the 9-11 perpetrators" they often say.
If that were true we would have invaded Pakistan and follow up with Saudi Arabia.
But we can't do that. Pakistan would retaliate with nuclear weapons in haste and the Saudi oil fields would become jeopardized. India would in turn need to join in and China would of course be concerned that they are downwind of all the fall out.

Even these fatuous speculations are a distraction from the issue of war as a tool of the proletariat against the poor, the powerful against the powerless, the government against its people and the greatest profit scheme of all time.

Every great social advance has come from people's movements such as, democracy over monarchy, women's rights, civil rights. In the opposite column people say that war inspires the greatest technological advancements.
I'd venture to say that war inspires anti war movements. That's why the best planned invasions always begin with propoganda and extortion to neutralize dissent.
If you need a case study, study the Hitler Youth, or just watch the 4 hour special on the History Channel. If you are not too fogged up with propaganda thinking patterns you could even watch the GE owned NBC with a critical eye and see the tawdry tinsel covered sell job for war.

None of this is to say there are not things worth fighting for:
When in the course of human events...I will fight any tyranny over the mind of man...The only thing to fear is fear itself.
Great men have waged war to end war. Losers usually start them : The Confederacy, Germany, Japan, Alexander the Great, GWB.


Today one of our great and honored Republican Congressmen said If we are attacked by any nuclear device we will first nuke every Muslim holy site beginning with Mecca.

Ya gotta love these Republicans.


No one else will.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:05 PM

Oh, did I touch a nerve?

More assumptions. But I notice that you still haven't actually said anything, so I know I can safely breeze on past your posts without worrying that I might actually miss anything.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:59 PM

Oh, did I touch a nerve?

There is life outside of this forum and I prefer to do my talking where it matters, here I simply like to point out, to the passerby, some of the gross nonsense that is written, much of it by you.

I'm not baiting anyone, in fact please don't respond, it doesn't matter. All the posts stay on record for everyone to read, people can make their own mind up.

In the beginning i thought you were just naive but now I think you actually believe the pseudo-intellectual clap-trap that you copy and paste from hither and thither, if you ever get to the stage where you also understand it God help us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:30 PM

You make a hell of a lot of assumptions, Shakey. beardedbruce asked me some questions and I answered them. If the best you have to offer of your own point of view is insults and taunts, rather than anything of substance, then you must not have much of anything to offer at all.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: Shakey
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:17 PM

Carol I have to admit you're good, you must have a first class honours degree in sophistry. But, in the end, bovine excrement is still just bullshit.

How do you manage to walk anywhere with that enormous chip on your shoulder. The guilt that you carry, simply for being in the west, must be crushing you.

Sure the US has made mistakes but they've also contributed one hell of a lot of good things to this world. You are spouting your nonsense on a US developed machine because they defended your right to do so three times in the last hundred years.

Spout all you want, the UK has just voted Blair to power for the third time with a massive majority - after the invasion of Iraq. The US did a similar job with Bush. You may rant and rave all you want and five people here on this forum will see it, meanwhile, real people will be working 12 hours a day to ensure you can keep on doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: 'The Face of 911' in London?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:23 PM

jpk, if they were going to kill themselves before we ever started interfering with their societies and appropriating their natural resources, why weren't they all dead already before we got there? That's some pretty convoluted rationalizing you're engaging in there.


Please provide some documentation on your statement "And the US government and its allies have killed many, many more kids than any terrorists have to further their agendas."

Interesting request. I think for now, I'll just provide examples. I'm sure you won't have any difficulty finding documentation to support them. But if you do, let me know and I'll round some up for you.

- The indigenous people of the part of North America that is now the US. The government of the US is responsible for killing, in cold blood, many thousands of Indian women and children.

- Any children of African origin/ancestry who were slaves in the United States, and who died because of their captivity, were killed by the policies of the US government and its agendas.

- Any children killed by the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan.

- Any children who were killed by the US military in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the US bombing campaigns in Cambodia (more than a half million civilians were killed by US bombs during the bombing campaigns in Cambodia).

- Any children who were killed by any US government sponsored covert operations in South and Central America.

- Any children who were killed by proxy fighters who were fighting on behalf of the US, including any Iranian children who were killed by Saddam Hussien, any children killed by the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, any children killed by US forces in Afghanistan, any children killed by the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some other examples right now, but I can post them as I think of them. I think it would be a bit difficult to find exact numbers for these kinds of things because the US government really couldn't give a poop how many children it kills and would prefer to keep the numbers left unknown. But I think it would be safe to assume that it easily adds up to more than a million in the history of the US.

Do you mean the US over its lifetime?

US over its lifetime.

All terrorists of any type?

I guess that depends on how you define "terrorist". If you're talking about state sponsored terrorism, then my statement that you quoted is rendered useless because of the fact that the US, itself, is a major sponsor of state sponsored terrorism. I also would not include genocide campaigns between ethnic groups like the one in Rwanda or the genocides in the Balkans as terrorism. Those were genocides, and have a very different purpose than terrorism.

The Turks are presently our allies ( in theory): Do you claim the 21+million Armenians killed as the responsibility of the US? How about the tens of millions killed by Stalin- He was out "ally" during WWII.

No, I do not claim that the US is responsible for the children killed by its allies (unless they do it at the behest of the US, as Saddam Hussein did). And the statement by me that you quoted does not even suggest that.