Explosions in London

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 02:31 PM

Also this from the article...

TAC: There have been many kinds of non-Islamic suicide terrorists, but have there been Christian suicide terrorists?

RP: Not from Christian groups per se, but in Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 02:25 PM

Bill, if you read the article I posted a link to, you will see that some of the original suicide terrorists, and the ones who invented the suicide bomber vest that is commonly used now, are the Tamil Tigers who are secular Marxists.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 02:19 PM

about 'motivation'...indeed, sometimes Nationalism or Ethnicity IS the base cause of attacks, but as El Greco notes, religion is 'almost' always present as a rationalé and 'moral' support factor.

How many suicide bombers would they be able to recruit without promises of Paradise?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 01:47 PM

In case my last sentence is misinterpreted: Not in this case - or any other case that I am aware of.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 01:45 PM

Agree, Kevin. In addition, I think "nationalism" should be applied here in a wider-than-usual interpretation: not referring to independent nations alone, but also to a wider gouping, such as a pan-Arab conscience. This then explains some of Wolfgang's questions and the fact that none of the London bombers (as far as we know or we are told) were of Iraqi or Afghani descent, yet their action is taken (by many, including me, though no proof is available) as being linked to Britain's involvement in those two countries.

I worked in the M.East for some years and I have friends in most of the countries around the Gulf of Iran and the Arabian peninsula. My understanding from long discussions with them in the past (10 years or so ago) is that they do indeed share this "pan-Arab" conscience, which comes into play when faced with a common enemy.

I believe that it is this wider interpretation of "nationalism", taking in racial (and possibly also some religious?) overtones, that is at work in this case. But religion is just part of it, and not the largest part either. To badge this common Arab feeling as a "religious idealism" would be wrong and misleading, and would miss the point. Religion may be used by those who would foment such feelings as a kind of "glue" (and also to provide incentives such as an enriched afterlife to the activists), but it is not the cause of terrorism. Not in this case.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 01:30 PM

Here's the article:

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7025

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 01:27 PM

The article dianavan is referring to specifically addresses the phenomenon of suicide terrorism. But I can see how some people might generalize it to be about any kind of terrorism.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 01:20 PM

I take dianavan as saying that not all terrorist groups are motivated by religion, but in many cases by nationalism related to foreign occupation, which is pretty evidently true; rather than that that all terrorist groups are motivated by nationalism related to foreign occupation, which is pretty evidently not true. (Her wording is ambiguous - a "many" or "generally" after that "but" would make it clearer, if my reading is correct.)

Though in fact, of the examples Wolfgang gave, many Pakistanis would regard the partition of Kashmir as constituting a foreign occupation of part of their country, and this has been a very significant element in the development of terrorist activities.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 12:30 PM

Research into the cause of terrorism points out that all terrorist groups are not motivated by religious ideology but by the fact that their homeland is being occupied by a foreign military. (Dianavan)

A very strange statement.
Which foreign country is occupying Pakistan?
Which foreign country was occupying Russia when the anarchists did bomb over there in the 19th century?
Which foreign country is occupying Indonesia from which the Bali bomb originated?
Which foreign country is occupying Tunesia from which the Djerba bomber killing German tourists in a synagogue came?
Which foreign country is occupying Morocco from which 5 identified Madrid bombers came?

When the RAF bombed in Germany in the 1970s/80s technically Germany could have be considered an occupied country but I can assure you that that was not at all on the minds of the terrorists. They wanted to fight the Vietnam war in Germany and freeing Germany from any occupation was not in their minds.

But what was in your mind when writing down that sentence?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 10:05 PM

From another thread:

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign-over 95 percent of all the incidents-has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

Evil ideology?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 10:01 PM

Too many rumours verging on gossip, and too much speculation going beyond the known facts. Maybe these were indeed suicide bombers, maybe they were bombers disposed of by their handlers, maybe they weren't bombers at all, but couriers with no idea what they were carrying.

No doubt in time evidence on which it would be possible to judge those those kind of things will will come out. But right now we haven't got it, and nor have the people speculating away in the media. There's something rather unsavoury about it all, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 09:59 PM

weelittledrummer - by one account?

Who is this one account? How would that person know if they had shaved off all of their body hair? Sounds doubtful to me. If he/she knew that the shaving took place, that person probably knew about the bombings apriori. I don't think there was much left of the bodies to examine and I do not think any of that kind of information has been released. If so, please site your sources.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 09:45 PM

my point being that they wouldn't have gone through the ( pre suicide) ritual shaving and held the bomb tightly to themselves if they had been in the process of planting it and running away or intending to run away.

first time I've been accused of subtlelty.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 09:15 PM

Motivation????

Research into the cause of terrorism points out that all terrorist groups are not motivated by religious ideology but by the fact that their homeland is being occupied by a foreign military.

For Blair to call the bombings a result of an evil ideology is either ignorant or another lie to mislead the public. Comments like that will create suspicion and divisions in communities.

Blair and anyone else can do their homework and find that the most logical explanation for the London bombings is the presence of British military personnel in Iraq.

Although I never liked Blair, I thought he was intelligent. Now I think he is extremely stupid. Doesn't he understand the position of Muslim youth in his country? Britain has invaded the middle east (a primarily Muslim territory) and he expects that the Muslim youth in Britain aren't already receiving flak from their peers? Doesn't matter how innocent you are, you will be targetted as an evil doer if you are Muslim, thanks to Blair. What does he want? Civil war?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 08:39 AM

Is it time for another discussion of the proper definition of Fascism as a economic and political system? Whatever their motivations may have been, I personally doubt that central control of privately-owned means of production and distribution were included.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Chris B
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 07:55 AM

My heart bleeds.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Leadfingers
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 07:02 AM

The latest theory seems to be that they WERE bombers , but not intentionally 'Suicide' Bombers - Set up to place the bombs and then murdered by their own people ! Nice friens some people have !

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Chris B
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 06:59 AM

Your point being what? Beware of bald asians carrying sports bags? I think we're all getting a bit bogged own in detail here.

For what it's worth, I don't like the term 'Islamofascist'. This is fascism, pure and simple. Fascism, as we should know, thrives in peasant societies where unchallenged patriarchal religious and social structures are the norm. Which is probably why fascism took hold in so many Catholic countries during the 20th century.

If there's any comfort in remembering that we are only a couple of generations away from that sort of behaviour ourselves, it may be that the peasant muslim world may be only a couple of generations behind us. Let's hope they can get there without the wars we fought among ourselves in the civilized world. I use that term without irony.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jul 05 - 05:39 AM

according to one account they had ritually shaved their body hair, and eye witnesses saw them clutching the bombs to their bodies.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 05 - 05:03 PM

I don't think they were taught, so much as brain washed. The condemnation of the bombings by all communities has probably done more damage to the bombers cause than their brain washers could have imagined. The coming together of many faiths has been a positive outcome of a sickening act.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser but Born Londone
Date: 16 Jul 05 - 04:54 PM

Who cares if they intended to kill themselves? I'm just glad they're dead. I hate saying that.

And who the hell is teaching young men in this country that they should be doing this? And why are we letting them?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: sapper82
Date: 15 Jul 05 - 10:17 AM

Question:
Were these people INTENTIONAL suicide bombers or did they intend dropping their bags and getting off the trains before they exploded?
It is possible that they thought the bombs had longer to go on the timers, but perhaps someone else had other ideas.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 10:09 PM

heric - Please don't pick your nose in public when you are in Canada or the U.S., either. Its unbecoming and beneath your dignity :>)

But yes, it does make you wonder how they were able to isolate the perpetrators so quickly. What I can't understand is why these guys were carrying I.D.? They claim to have found their I.D. What???

From all the reports, these guys seemed to have no politics. They seemed to be like the guy next door. Could it be that they thought perhaps they were transporting something else? Could it be that they didn't know what was in the packs? Could it be that they were just pack mules looking to earn some quick money? The mind reels.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 09:28 PM

Unfortunately, this is only available to listen to until 9pm-ish (UK time) on Fri, 16 July, but I thought this commentator's insights were very sound. If the link above doesn't work, try BBC Radio 4's News page and scroll down to 'A Point of View'. (You will need RealPlayer or the BBC RadioPlayer in order to listen.)

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 08:20 PM

Jacqui.....You make a very good point, many Muslims seem to feel that we value one western life as equal to twenty in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: heric
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 11:28 AM

That was quite anazing. At first I thought it was not such a big deal after they said "Oh, one of their mother's called us," but that doesn't explain it all by a long shot. I would expect in the states to read a year or so later about how one of the mothers called in but no one followed through.

I won't pick my nose in public on my next trip to the UK.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 11:20 AM

You're right. Also the family of the 18yr old bomber, reported him missing that morning to the police. He had not long returned from a trip to Pakistan with ( I think) 2 of the other bombers. I believe the police and his family had their suspicions that he was maybe in some way responsible, and that was a huge lead for them to follow up.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 11:17 AM

BTW, the British police was amazingly quick in tracing the suicide bombers. They even seem to search the correct houses and seem to know who was the man behind the bombs. CCTV whether we like it or not played a big role in that success.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From:
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 08:48 AM

The two minute silence was observed where I work. Quite a few of us went up onto the roof terrace and looked out towards the city others just sat at their desks. It was a very eerie feeling for there to be no other noise other than the refinery working away on its own.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 08:40 AM

Jacqui, it was covered in the NY Times, but you are correct about the follow-up. This is likely because this happens in Baghdad every day.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 08:24 AM

The Baghdad car bombing did get coverage on all UK news programmes. If the people of Baghdad decide to hold a two minute silence I am sure those who wish to mark it in Baghdad will do so. It isn't our call to tell them that.

The two minute silence in London was eerie and very emotional. Soho Square was packed as workers came into the streets and joined the tourists for the silence. I can'tcomment on elsewhere, but I am sure it was observed everywhere.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: jacqui.c
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 08:19 AM

Just a small point here. Yesterday a car bomb was used in Bahgdad to kill 26 people, mostly children. That incident got some coverage on the nightly news in Maine, but when I looked through the main stories in the New York Times on line it was nowhere to be seen. Likewise, it was a relatively small item on the BBC and ITV websites. I am pretty sure that this story will not be followed up in any real manner.

Now, to me the killing and maiming of children is an obscenity in any language and there should be a lot more coverage than is the case. This is where I think that we in the West go wrong - when it isn't ours that are being slaughtered we tend to let the waves wash over it and forget it ever happened. No two minute silence for those babies or interviews with bereaved parents....

Rant over - just had to get that out.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 07:12 AM

Hmmm, I don't know, sapper83. No stones thrown your way, your tin hat is safe from me, but I favour a different interpretation, that says:

I am willing to accept that Islam as a religion is basically pacifist, as indeed is Christianity. Nevertheless, neither religion (or any other religion that I can think of) has managed historically to prevent atrocities and wars to take place in the religion's name. You cite the early days of Christianity being propagated by peaceful means - I would say that this was so simply because they were in no position to do otherwise. They were the underdogs of society, until the first "christian" states came into existence. But when the Christians came into power, Jews were persecuted, Christians of other dogmas were hunted down etc etc. Look at the Protestant/Catholic divide in Northern Europe and the 100-years war, for example. How come the pacifist Christians turned to the monsters that burned and tortured - think Inquisition. It was not their religion that was driving them, is my answer; the motives were different, and religion became the dressing for mass consumption.

I believe it is societies and cultures that breed violence, not religions. Sure, religion can play a formative role in any culture, but more often than not, it is an external trapping only, as far as that culture's drives are concerned. I am thinking behaviour of the masses, here. There is also the question of what drives an individual "religious leader" to advocating violence - but once more, I would argue that it is not religion that bred the hatred, but rather the concept of perceived wrongs (and in some cases even blatant greed). Religion (and you can extend that to cover also "political beliefs") is then used to dress the message, because it provides an easy vehicle for infecting the masses.

Especially when you consider the history of religions, and the geographies where they were first created and spread, you find that more often than not, it was the local culture and geography that shaped the religion, rather than the other way round.

For example, English society has inherent violence, going back as far as you will; it was not religion that bred this, but circumstances - the need to protect one's own possessions, or grab the neighbour's, tribal wars etc etc. The violent undercurrents are strong and manifest themselves often mildly as an urge to "put down" others out of the blue (unheard of in southern european cultures). I don't pretend to know the origins of it, but I know they are older than any religion. And I know that it goes beyond the appearance of hooliganism or the superiority of empire-building in the past; that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Similarly, Middle Eastern cultures have values bred in that existed before any religion made its appearance. The position of women in their society reflects some of these older-than-religion values. Lack of tolerance towards opposing beliefs or criticism is another - and is the REAL cause of many of the "fatwas" issued and "jihads" proclaimed (I use the quotes to indicate the falsity of purpose).

In the end there are always going to be differences between people and between cultures, that are not caused by religion, but are instead couched and explained in religious terms. As it is unlikely that these differences will ever disappear, in the end the only possible route towards the nirvana of global peace can be tolerance of such differences and fair treatment of each other (to minimise new grievances coming to the fore to foster new hatred to be dressed up as religious difference).

Now, how likely is that? Not very, I have to admit. Which is not a good reason for being intolerant, however. I cannot create peace everywhere, but perhaps I can help create some peace in my immediate surroundings. And even then, in today's world of global communication and travel, the peace in my immediate surroundings can be disturbed. But if the opposite to trying for tolerance is breeding more hatred through intolerance, I choose the former.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: sapper82
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 05:31 AM

I am probably going to cop a lot of flak over this, but I am getting fed up with well meaning people hiding their heads in the sands and creating a open goal for the BNP to score points with. So donning my tin hat, here we go!

There are essential differences between the ways in which Islam and Christianity were spread, at least for the first couple of hundred years of each.

Taking the older first, Christianity's initial spread was against much oppression, by entirely by means of peaceful evangelism and personal example. It was not until adoption by the Romans that force and coercion began to be used.

Islam on the other hand owed its rapid expansion entirely to the sword. At the end of the First Millenium Islam had spread far beyond Arabia and was threatening to engulf Europe. The legends of El Cid, Charlemagne and Roland belong to this time when the very existance of Christianity was under threat.

Placed in this context, the reasons for the Crusades (though not their effects and methods)do become much more understandable.

This does tend to blow apart the blanket assumption that Islam is a religion of peace, prepared to live quietly and with respect for thier non-Islamic neighbours. As much as most followers in the UK and Europe would like to live in peace, the history of Islam is one of militancy and opression of "the infidel". This is still happening in Asia and Africa. Witness the continuing murders of Budhists in South East Thailand by muslims intent on the "Religious Cleansing" of that area.

Irrespective of the peaceful wishes and desires of the majority of European Muslims, there is sufficient justification in the Koran for these murders to be recognised as Islamic acts and we in the UK have been guilty of allowing a tiny minority of Muslim clerics to preach hatred whilst at the same time claiming assylum and funds from our Government.

Denying this is allowing the BNP to run rings round ANY arguement for integration.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 05 - 04:25 AM

"From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 06:55 PM

" and a prospective election candidate admitting to a campaign of pushing dog excrement through the front door of an Asian takeaway"

Oh Guest, must you be so innocent. If you read the reports you will know the full story. When the police contacted that asian takeaway owner in question about the excrement, the asian denied any knowledge of ever recieving it. It then turned out that the fellow alledging that crime was working with state-informant andy sykes the whole time! You must be one of thoss strange individuals who likes to pay his TV licence to the Blairs Broadcasting Corporation, (BBC).

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 10:19 PM

I, too, feel the grief of the families who now realize that it was their son's who bombed London. The shame, the guilt and the despair must be horrible.

It seems so much like gang recruitment. Older boys (young men) recruiting disenfranchised youth to join them in criminal activity. In fact, I now view Jihadists in the same way I view the Mafia, the Red Circle Gang, The Crips, etc. All of these groups found fertile ground in countries with immigrant children who found it hard to find their place in a new society. This is certainly organized crime.

What else do Jihadists have in common with other gangs?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Alba
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 09:10 PM

Indeed El Greko.
Well put.
Jude

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 08:51 PM

What puzzles me is that after the initial claim on the internet, ther has been no further substantiation or confirmation ; and - more important - no statement coming from any organisation explaining the reasons for the bombings or the ideology that led to them; no notes, no messages, no demand for troop withdrawal or cancellation of the Olympics or the G8. Very unusual in such cases, and unheard of in Al Qaeda actions.

There's still a lot more to this than we know (or the investigators, I venture to suggest). Still, that doesn't stop people from jumping to conclusions and sending threatening messages to muslims. Bad days to come yet, I fear.

They say that such terrorists often are so secretive about their allegiances that even immediate family members would not be aware of their role. My heart goes to the victims' families; but also to the Tewkesbury muslims who are now viewed collectively with suspicion by some (thankfully not all, not even the majority). Not knowing why you lost a dear friend or relative must be torture. And being told that your son or friend may have been a terrorist (which you never suspected and in your heart may find hard to believe) must also be a torture, of a different kind. I am not comparing the two kinds - but there is more heartache out there than I realised at first. And what's worse, there may be worse to come if the hotheaded take action.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 08:49 PM

Strictly speaking, the famous massacre (which was mostly of Christians and Jews, anyway) that took place when Jerusalem was stormed in 1098 had nothing much to do with King Richard. That was the first crusade, and it took place long before his birth. He was one of the leaders of the Third Crusade, which took place in the 1190s, and which was notable for nothing in particular.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 08:04 PM

"I read somewhere that this problem between Christians and Muslims goes back to the Crusades in 1099 when the forces of Richard the Lionheart butchered 50,000 men, women and children in cold blood."

And they both had GOD on their side.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 07:36 PM

Exactly. Terorists terrorize. Bombers bomb.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 07:30 PM

Terrorist is a vague word, bomber is a specific word, and therefore more relevant in a news report.

News reports ought to be about providing the facts, not about telling people what they should make of them. There is a place for comment, but there should be a distinction between comment and factual reporting. "Terrorist" is a word that blurs that distinction, and is often used for that purpose. It is better kept on the comment side rather than the fact side, and I would imagine that the BBC has something like that written into its house style manual.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 07:14 PM

Hey there, Art. Hope your weather's good!

I am trying to justify my observation that by being a 'younger' relilgion, Islam is going through, for want of a better word, 'teething' problems that Christianity has been through some time earlier. In the time of Voltaire, a Protestant was broken on the wheel and dismembered while still alive in a very public case which caused him to come up with the term 'ecrase l'infame' to denigrate the Catholic Church. When we read about a powerful Muslim leader seeking religious authorization to use nuclear weapons against civilians or of a fatwa against an author of a popular book, we are seeing things that have happened in the Christian world, only displaced in time.

Islam has its own internecine strife, on many levels, the one I'm most familiar with being the schism between Sunni and Shia, which dates as far back as the son-in-law of Mohammed.

The Enlightenment was a rise in the power and appreciation of secularism out of a world dominated by religious leaders and national leaders who bore religious mantles and led religious causes. This arose in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries but has not arisen in the Islamic world until possibly the 20the century, and by no means in all parts of it.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Alba
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 07:13 PM

Guest: 06:26 PM

"All we are saying is..."

Are you speaking for all of us on the Mudcat or is there a "we" I am not aware of:>)

Jude

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 07:13 PM

The Bush administration tried to get "Suicide Bomber" changed in news reports to "Murder Bomber." As far as I know, everyone ignored them except the Fox network.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 07:03 PM

Other nationalities might be interested to know that news readers on the BBC were told not to refer to the perpetrators as terrorists.
That word was considered to be too judgemental.
BBC news sites used the word terrorist on Thursday but on Friday it was editted to bomber.
Would this happen in any other country in the world?
I think they were wrong, but I am glad I live in a country that worries about such things.
keith.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 06:59 PM

Islam is a "younger" religion...

Well, of course it is. The Prophet lived and wrote in the latter half of the Sixth Century, while Christianity is basically a Fourth Century celebration of the life of someone who lived many years before.

I'm not sure if certain terms are being used entirely correctly. The Reformation was the break between what are now called the Protestant and the Catholic branches of Christianity, and the resulting wars were among the bloodiest in European history. (Read Luther's commentaries on the peasant revolts, for example.) This was hardly the first such schism; the earlier one between the Orthodox and Catholics still forms at least part of the wars in the Balkans. These are doctrinal disagreements and the Muslems have had their fair share. The Sunni and Shia have been at it for centuries, and Salafism/Wahabism opposes both of these. On the other hand, many Muslems do not allow their religion to control their lives and are as secular as many Western "Christians."

The Enlightenment was not a religious movement. Enlightenment thinkers, such as Descartes and Rousseau, rarely expressed themselves in religious terms and both the established (Catholic) church and the nascent Protestants generally opposed them.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 06:55 PM

The evidence he collected includes one BNP member, Steve Barkham, confessing to a violent assault on an Asian man, and a prospective election candidate admitting to a campaign of pushing dog excrement through the front door of an Asian takeaway.

Another man is seen saying that he wants to kill Asians and attack mosques. Activists are filmed plotting to fire bomb a van being used by to distribute anti-BNP literature.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 06:49 PM

One of the most worrying aspects of this attack on London has been the mindless white yobs who have now taken it upon themselves to go and attack sikh temples believing them to be muslim mosques.

It is just as troubling when they attack Muslim mosques as it is when they attack Sikh temples. And they are attacking Muslim mosques.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 13 Jul 05 - 06:35 PM

Carol Wrote:
"However, even if they did, you still can't hold all Muslims responsible for the acts of a few. Otherwise it would be correspondingly appropriate to hold you personally responsible for every act of violence committed against Muslims by people who are not Muslim". end quote:

I agree Carol, of course not ALL muslims can be blamed for the acts of a few muslims. I think a lot of peoples worry i talk to is that will this set a precedent for young muslims who are perhaps lost in the UK, i mean lost as in without feeling they belong anymore, and young muslims could be persuaded by extremists to join ranks.

Also, there are estimated 2million muslims in the UK, it means that even if just one percent of that 2 million are extremist in sentiment, that means 1000 muslims are expressing militant tendencies against the UK, which is worrying.

One of the most worrying aspects of this attack on London has been the mindless white yobs who have now taken it upon themselves to go and attack sikh temples believing them to be muslim mosques. I presume these yobs saw a darker colour and that was enough for them to act. It is sad.