Explosions in London

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 11:41 AM

Imagine the flak if we decided to piss all over a thread about a tragic occurence in US.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:54 AM

Guest, Fed Up, you have a bizarre idea of what constitutes an attack.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 10:53 AM

Useful Idiots

From the Guardian article...

If Germany's experience has lessons for us, it is that the outcome of our journey depends most of all upon security measures to catch the terrorists and a rejection of violence by those who are tempted to excuse or even condone it.

Rejection of violence indeed.

Iraq Body Count

"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."

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Fed Up
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:25 AM

Carol, take some valium. This is a discussion forum, not an abuse forum. Your regular attacks on people such as McGrath, El Greko, greg, and others do not win you any debating points.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jul 05 - 09:16 AM

Nitpicking is better than insults. Wolfgang's approach has a lot to be said for it.

Though I'd disagree with his judgement this time, where he reads intent into what appears pretty clearly to have been ambiguity in a hastily written post by dianavan.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:22 PM

Wolfgang - You are such a nitpicker you drive me crazy!

If there is a misunderstanding, take it up with "Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice."

From the article posted by Carol C. in this thread and by me on another thread.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jul 05 - 11:22 AM

Dianavan,

(1) there was nothing in your post I have quoted indicating you were only talking about suicide terrorist groups
(2) But even if you restrict what you have said to them it is wrong as you can see in some of my examples. Take Djerba for incidence. A Tunesian suicide-bombing Germans in a Synagogue. Who is occupying Tunesia?

I take dianavan as saying that not all terrorist groups are motivated by religion (McGrath)

McGrath, not all terrorist groups... I only can agree with a sentence formulated this cautious way. In my eyes it is true and completely uncontroversial. My issue is with the 'all are not motivated' expression. You think Dianavan didn't express herself well. You could be right but from other opinions of her I think she did express herself well and I disagree with the content (and not at all with her way of expressing herself). But she is the only one who can tell that better than our speculations.

El Greko, good observations, but you made me stop when you did write about the "pan-Arab" conscience. The Indonesian bombers do not fit in here for they are not Arabs though they are co-religionists. The common religion is here the motive and not the common Arab-ness. Suicide terrorists from the South of Sudan also hardly fit the Pan-Arab motive.

Using the cautious formulation of McGrath I'd agree that not all motives are religious but I'd disagree with 'all motives are not religious'.

BTW, I liked reading a comment in today's Guardian with a German angle (our terrorists of the 70s) in it:

Useful idiots have always apologised for terrorists

Those who say we are doomed to remain indefinitely in a state of siege are as wrong as those who think that merely to withdraw from Iraq, desirable though that would be, would bring the terrorist siege to a quick, clean end.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:40 PM

The distinction I make between invective and abuse is perhaps one that is open to challenge. My dictionary actually defines invective as "abusive speech or writing, vituperation, wordy onslaught or attack". Though dictionaries shouldn't be treated as being the last word...

But I'm sure you'd recognise as familiar the example given below the definition: he was a master of invective, but a shallow reasoner There's a lot of that around here sometimes.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:15 PM

Alright then pardner, get out yer dictionary, and let's have a look...

My dictionary...

Main Entry: 1in-vec-tive
Pronunciation: in-'vek-tiv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English invectif, from Middle French, from Latin invectivus, from invectus, past participle of invehere
: of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 08:01 PM

Sorry brucie - you're getting your wires crossed in pst 8 Jul 05 - 07:29 PM;

That was me, not Carol. And I don't kjbnow where you are geting tegh idea that I think that somehow there was something justifiable about the train bombings, which I specifically described as vicious murder in the paragraph you didn't quote from that post of mine you ascribed to Carol.

............
I disagree there Carol - I differentiate between baiting (or teasing) and invective. That doesn't mean they can't be mis-used in a discussion, just as invective often is. And both should be distinguished from the kind of unpleasant personal abuse which gets thrown around too freely, especially by people who've made fools of themselves in an argument.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:46 PM

beardedbruce, please show me where, in my 4:20 post, the word "most" appears. Please note - "average" and "most" do not mean the same thing.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:40 PM

And I do find it rich that you would suggest that I have no sense of irony just because I live across the Atlantic, McGrath. I've caught irony that got past your radar more than once. Them's fighting words.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:40 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Pessimist vs Optimist
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:20 PM

But the my whole point really was for the purpose of addressing who could defined as being "average" in terms of what sort of experiences people were having. In the deep south, slaves were "the average person" prior to the civil war.

************************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Pessimist vs Optimist
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 03:47 PM

Were the slaves in the census at that time being counted each as one full human, or did 1 slave = 3/4 (or whatever fraction they used) of a full human?

From your link, beardedbruce, 1860 census, counting only the states that can pretty indesputedly be counted as "the South"...

Free -
Slave -

Alabama - 529,121
Alabama - 435,080

Florida - 78,679
Florida - 61,745

Georgia - 595,088
Georgia - 462,198

Louisiana - 376,276
Louisiana - 331,726

Mississippi - 354,674
Mississippi - 436,631

North Carolina - 661,563
North Carolina - 331,059

South Carolina - 301,302
South Caronina - 402,406

Virginia - 1,105,453
Virginia - 490,865

If we assume that in this census 1 slave = 1 full human being, then you are correct on the numbers. But the 1860 census shows that out of a total population of 7,568,454 in the states listed above, 3,566,298 were slaves. That means that the slaves numberd only 217,929 less than half of the total population. I think, considering the numbers, we can say that the slaves in the south could very definitely be put in the category of "average" in terms of how many people were having what kinds of experiences during that time period. And of course, if they were not each being counted as a full human, it's very possible that the number of slaves did indeed exceed the numbers of free people.

************************************************************************

3:47 PM is now AFTER 4:20PM?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:36 PM

In the case of Shock and Awe, residential areas were bombed, as were hotels. In other words, civilians. In the case of the train bombings, the targets were civilians who ride on trains.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:32 PM

Invective used for the purpose of baiting, McGrath, if you want to get technical.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:29 PM

CarolC,

"And so they should - but they don't. Obviously that is true of the train bombers - but it is true also of those who organised and carried out Operation Shock and Awe, designed specifically to terrorise civilians as well as military."

What were the TARGETS that the bombers were aiming at? if one wishes to attack military targets so that a civilian population can observe the effects, THAT is permitted. Byt intentionally targeting civilian populations, as the insrugents have done , are doing, and continue to do is in direct violation of all international war. So, how about some condemnation for them?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:27 PM

beardedbruce, if you look again at that thread, you will see that I conceded that my numbers may have been incorrect when I said this...

"If we assume that (blah blah blah... not going to rehash that thread in this one), then you are correct on the numbers"

I did it after I said this...

" since there were more slaves than free people in that part of the country"

and before I said this:

" But the 1860 census shows that out of a total population of 7,568,454 in the states listed above, 3,566,298 were slaves. That means that the slaves numberd only 217,929 less than half of the total population."

This means that I conceded that I might have been wrong about using the word "most" before making the second statement quoted above.

Nice try at being misleading and disingenuous. No cigar though.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:25 PM

Baiting perhaps, on greg's part, Carol, but not invective. (And with a self-mocking touch at the end, though I'm not sure if that would have been picked up across the Atlantic).

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:08 PM

This invective, Greg...

Youre right, Shakey. She'll be by any minute. She'll show me why she thinks I'm wrong, and provide some very comprehensive references to a number of other publications by people who also know I'm wrong, and write at extreeeeeeeeeme legth to prove it.All I can say is, i was working alongside Muslim youth in England pre-9/11, and have been ever since. CarolC may think I know damn nothing, but I tell you I know damn all.

This is not a rational discussion of issues. This is baiting.

Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:07 PM

*sigh*...Carol...you are still reading my comments, and then replying, not to what I claimed, but to a point YOU wish to make.

I am not trying to characterize all the known suicide bombings since 1980...and NOT to the Tamil conflict, and NOT to the Lebanese conflict.....I am trying to reflect on what is happening since 9/11, and particularly to the Iraqi events and Israeli events in the news recently...and of course, to the London events. If you wish to argue that I SHOULD be paying attention to what the Tamils and Lebanese have done, you may...but I won't get into that, as those issues are beyond what *I* am hearing about daily.

There simply IS a strong element of religious recruitment and much distortion of basic Islamic theology happening in those conflicts these days....and as I said, I am pleased that many moderate Muslim clerics are realizing this and beginning to speak out about the problem.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:03 PM

Oh?


" But the 1860 census shows that out of a total population of 7,568,454 in the states listed above, 3,566,298 were slaves. That means that the slaves numberd only 217,929 less than half of the total population."

" since there were more slaves than free people in that part of the country"



If you did not say this, why is it posted on the mentioned thread by you?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:02 PM

Guest Steve, i am afraid you are lying, or you are not aware of what happened, my friend works on the top of quay and is a manager,   and the video will prove that did happen.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:01 PM

Invective, Carol? I waa discussing London explosions. You accused me of being drunk: (there are other possible reasons for typing mistakes). So who was producing invective, exactly? Just answer the points I made, please. ( And I have never had obscene personal attacks removed from Mudcat, unlike some people I could mention).

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 07:00 PM

Nice try, beardedbruce, but I think you know as well as I do that I did not say that.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:59 PM

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets.

And so they should - but they don't. Obviously that is true of the train bombers - but it is true also of those who organised and carried out Operation Shock and Awe, designed specifically to terrorise civilians as well as military.

When I point out that there is no great difference between what is done in our name and what is done to us, that is not intended to imply that I think that I think stuff like the bombings are anything other than vicious murder.

...
World War II came about because the German government was intent on aggression against its neighbours. The invasion of Iraq came about because the US government decided to invade Iraq, which was not engaged in aggression against its neighbours, nor in a position to do so.

It was a very nasty government. But I don't think there is any reason to be confident that the government which be running Iraq within a few years will be any better. In fact there are grounds for predicting that in some ways, such as the position of women and of the Christian minority, it may be significantly worse.

In the meantime the terror which has been unleashed upon the Iraqi people as a result of the invasion and occupation daily becomes worse and, and is several orders more terrible than anything we have had to put up with.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:57 PM

Greg Stephens, i really couldn't say, as i said, i have never read any of your posts except for the previous two.

I suppose if most of your posts are about folk music, then i guess not, i usually ask for chords but not under my name, lol, but i tend to stay on the non-music section mostly. So again, unlike yourself who has read a lot of my posts with interest, i have never read any of yours that i recall anyway.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:56 PM

Greg, I don't really have any interest in being baited by you. If you want me to discuss issues with you, you can leave out the invective.


(It has been staged recorded and will be available VERY shortly.)

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,Steve
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:54 PM

David Hannam

I work in Princess Quay and nothing happened as you describe the 12.00 o'clock two minutes silence was respected by all.

Why try and make trouble, there is always someone listening to catch you out, your lies do not make sense.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:54 PM

CarolC,
"Sorry, Bill, but even this bit from your link conflicts with your use of the term "most". The percentages given here are 43 percent coming from religously affiliated groups and 57 percent coming from secular groups."

But, YOU have stated that less than half is most, so....

thread.cfm?threadid=82432

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:53 PM

David Hannam: I am quite sure 99% of my posts will be of no interest to you whatever, and this is of no surprise to me. They are about folk music.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:46 PM

Sorry, Bill, but even this bit from your link conflicts with your use of the term "most". The percentages given here are 43 percent coming from religously affiliated groups and 57 percent coming from secular groups.

"'Dying to Win" draws on a thorough database of all suicide attacks recorded since the contemporary practice was born during the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s: a total of 315 incidents through 2003, involving 462 suicidal attackers. Of the 384 attackers for whom Pape has data, who committed their deeds in such danger zones as Sri Lanka (where the decidedly non-fundamentalist, quasi-Marxist Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks since 1987 in their fight for a Tamil homeland), Israel, Chechnya, Iraq, and New York, only 43 percent came from religiously affiliated groups. The balance, 57 percent, came from secular groups. Strikingly, during the Lebanese civil war, he says, some 70 percent of suicide attackers were Christians (though members of secular groups)."

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:43 PM

Carol: as Herodotus observed, the Iranians(the next targets for Bush by all accounts) discussed all serious matters first when drunk, and then reconsidered their decisions the following day when sober. If they inadvertently took a decision after a first discussion when sober, they postponed acting on it till they had had an opportunity to rethink it when drunk that night.
What think ye?
    But come on, tell me why I am wrong. I'm afraid I am not drunk at the moment, just the old problem kicking in.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:41 PM

haha, greg stephens doesn't like truths it seems. What is more offensive, me recounting muslims celebrating in Hull? Or Muslims celebrating?

Greg Stephens, i have never read your posts with any particular interest, so i really couldn't tell you to sod off.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:36 PM

In your cups a bit this evening are you, Greg?

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:30 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:30 PM

David Hannam, I have read your post with great interest. Now kindly sod off back to Berchtesgarden.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:29 PM

McGrath of Harlow,

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

http://www.genevaconventions.org/


An enemy's capital might be considered a military target- But I suspect that even you would have difficulty in saying random civilians on a train, or children in a crowd were military targets.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: GUEST,David Hannam
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:26 PM

In Princess Quay at the stroke of 12.00pm for the minute silence, muslim shopkeepers on the top quay turned up their radios and started jeering and cheering. Hull Daily Mail not interested! It has been recorded and will be available VERY shortly.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:22 PM

I do note that Pape and others point out that 'most' of the suicide attacks in Iraq come from young people recruited from OUTSIDE Iraq...with Saudis being prime candidates.

and for a slightly different view of Robert Pape's work, Carol, you might read this article from a couple weeks ago

I note particularly this comment:

"Research by other scholars backs up this point. David Laitin, a Stanford University expert on civil wars, and Eli Berman, an economist at the University of California at San Diego, have demonstrated that while only 18 percent of the 114 civil wars since 1945 have pitted members of one religious group against another, fully 90 percent of suicide attacks take place in inter-religious conflicts."

This is the phenomenon *I* am noting....and it seems to me that, when religious leaders do not explicitly and strongly condemn hate-based violence, many followers take it as tacit approval.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:18 PM

Youre right, Shakey. She'll be by any minute. She'll show me why she thinks I'm wrong, and provide some very comprehensive references to a number of other publications by people who also know I'm wrong, and write at extreeeeeeeeeme legth to prove it.All I can say is, i was working alongside Muslim youth in England pre-9/11, and have been ever since. CarolC may think I know damn nothing, but I tell you I know damn all.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Shakey
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:09 PM

Good grief a sensible person snook in the forum when I wasn't watching.

Problem is greg you're wrong, carolC will tell you why in a minute.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:07 PM

Apologies for the typos in the previous post. I was attempting to tidy them up, but pressed the wrong button. As JOhn from Hull said, this is an Irark sight, not a spelin sight.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: greg stephens
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 06:03 PM

The dianavan and CaolC's of the world coninually overlook the bleeding obvious. Yes, of course the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq increased the risk of retaliation by Islamic bombers. The UK declared war on Germany in 1939, and those who opposed thsat action also correctly pointed out that this would provoke Hitler into bombing London. And so it did. But this does not actually prove that fighting the Nazis was a Bad Thing. There is a logical bit missing in the argument.
    The fact is, to look at the precise situation we have here: the level of violent disafection among the young British Muslim youth of Pakaistani otign was ahuge cause for alarm before Iraq, Afghanistan, and before 9/11. And of course, it beacem greater when America retaliated in Afghanistan, and again after the recent Iraq conflict. As, I pointed out earlier, did German action after we declared war on them. That has no relevance to the question of what you should do about Nazis, Islamic fundamentalism, or any other lunatic ideology. Of course these people fight back when provoked. But that does not prove they must not be confronted.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 05:54 PM

"... 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."

yes, I see that. It doesn't negate what I said (I try to note in my posts room for exceptions)...MOST of the current attacks still rely on religious recruitment and youthful fervor ... and in Israel/Palestine, it seems to be close to 100% The London events were clearly related to these factors, as were the 9/11 events.

If there is to be any progress made, we must look VERY honestly at exactly what seems to be happening.

...and let me add, I am quite pleased with today's Fatwa announcement by many moderate Muslim clerics, condemning suicide bombings..It showed courage and is a good sign.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Shakey
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 05:11 PM

Yep carolC you're probably right.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 05:06 PM

Wolfgang - I was referring to suicide terrorism. Read the article Carol C. posted.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 04:57 PM

Then intent of "Operation Shock and Awe" (massive bombing campaign by the US that targeted civilians as well as combatants in Iraq) was to terrorize the Iraqis so badly, they wouldn't try to put up any resistance to the invasion and occupation of their country by the US and it's allies. That's terrorism, by definition.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 04:53 PM

Precisely.

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: Shakey
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 04:31 PM

It's not a matter of "in a train" it's a matter of intent

Subject: RE: Explosions in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jul 05 - 04:27 PM

I still can't see why it is considered ethically superior to kill random civilians by dropping bombs on them from a great height rather than sitting beside them in a train.