BS: Here we go again in London

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 05:40 AM

I can never understand why anyone ever answers the posts Ted submitts. His three line posts regarding such stories are always the same.

Well Living in Spain for the next month, so warm and beautiful. Not missing the weather back home. The addict in me found this internet cafe and had to see what you are all at.

Regards
Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

Where have you been hiding, flamenco ted? Unless you have deliberately avoided reading any of the reparts in the papers about the killing, after the first 48 hours or so, or taking in any subsequent news bulletins touching on it - and there were one hell of a lot of both - you'd have known that that stuff you wrote there was absolute nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Mr Fox
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM

"Very easy to be wise after the event. If he hadn't run, he wouldn't have been shot. If he hadn't been an illegal immigrant, he wouldn't have run."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the last damned time: - HE DIDN'T RUN AND HE WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. Neither was he wearing an unseasonably bulky jacket nor did he jump a barrier.

He walked down to the platform in his normal way, picking up a free newspaper on the way. He boarded the train and sat down. - whereupon he was dragged out of his seat, overpowered and, WHILE ABOUT THREE POLICEMEN WERE SITTING ON HIM, shot several times at point blank range.

One question. What happens when the terorists start using triggers that set the bomb off when they let go of them? fat lot of good shooting them will be then.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 04:13 AM

Very easy to be wise after the event. If he hadn't run, he wouldn't have been shot. If he hadn't been an illegal immigrant, he wouldn't have run.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:59 AM

The terrorist who wasn't (from the GUARDIAN)

Looks like a good follow-up summary to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Aug 05 - 02:28 PM

We've just had a very worrying bit of news about this case. Just about all the details we thought we knew were wrong. No bulky jacket, no bag, no jumping the ticket barrier. He was mis-identified as he left the flat, and ran for a train.

The police protocol for suicide bomb suspects is to shoot if they run.
I'm a young man who's run for trains whilst carrying odd shaped bags.

Looks like there was a major failure of the sysytem, and he was the wrong person in the wrong place at wrong time.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:46 AM

Ake,

it's always a pleasure to disagree with you. You're not in any way close to being an apologist for terrorism, the disagreemant is in (some of) the methods how to stand up against it.

Dianavan,

it is not easy to tell (harbouring vs. infiltration), but in Afghanistan the succession of statements from Mullah Omar (Bin Who? He's not here; he's here but the status of a guest is sacrosanct to a Muslim; we'll hand him over if you give us definite proof) made the conclusion easy. In the other examples I cannot see that the respective governments actually support the terrorists that are (physically or with interests) in their countries. But each case has to be decided on its own.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:52 AM

Peter Tatchell (Human Rights campaigner, London)

We are witnessing one of the greatest betrayals by the left since so-called left-wingers backed the Hitler-Stalin pact and opposed the war against Nazi fascism. Today, the pseudo-left reveals its shameless hypocrisy and its wholesale abandonment of humanitarian values. While it deplores the 7/7 terrorist attack on London, only last year it welcomed to the UK the Muslim cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who endorses the suicide bombing of innocent civilians. These same right-wing leftists back the so-called 'resistance' in Iraq. This 'resistance' uses terrorism against civilians as its modus operandi - stooping to the massacre of dozens of Iraqi children in order kill a few US soldiers. Terrorism is not socialism; it is the tactic of fascism. But much of the left doesn't care. Never mind what the Iraqi people want, it wants the US and UK out of Iraq at any price, including the abandonment of Iraqi socialists, trade unionists, democrats and feminists. If the fake left gets its way, the ex-Baathists and Islamic fundamentalists could easily seize power, leading to Iranian-style clerical fascism and a bloodbath. I used to be proud to call myself a leftist. Now I feel shame. Much of the left no longer stands for the values of universal human rights and international socialism.

My emphasis. Shakey

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:40 AM

Communities United Against Terror

Terrorist attacks against Londoners on July 7th killed at least 54 people. The suicide bombers who struck in Netanya, Israel, on July 12 ended five lives, including two 16 year old girls. And on July 13, in Iraq, suicide bombers slaughtered 24 children. We stand in solidarity with all these strangers, hand holding hand, from London to Netanya to Baghdad: communities united against terror.

These attacks were the latest atrocities committed by terrorist groups inspired by a poisonous and perverted politics that disguises itself as a form of the religion of Islam. The terrorists seek a closed society of fear and conformity. They are opposed by Muslims the world over. Muslim community leaders have condemned the London attacks unequivocally. We reject the terrorists' claim that they represent authentic Islam. They do not.

We remember the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 and in Madrid on March 11, 2004. But we know that al Qaeda and groups that are inspired by Bin-Ladenism have carried out atrocities in France, Pakistan, Israel, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Iraq, Morocco, Yemen, Tunisia, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, North Osetia and many other countries.

The vast majority of the victims of al Qaeda's violence have been Muslims. Those who have suffered at the hands of violent Islamic Fundamentalist movements in Iran and Algeria have also been ordinary Muslims.

This terrorist violence is not a response by 'Muslims' to the injustices perpetrated upon them by 'the west'. Western democracies have been responsible for some of the ills of this world but not for the terrorist murders of these deluded Bin-Ladenists.

These attacks did not begin in 2003. The first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center took place ten years before, in 1993.

These terrorists do not hate what is worst in the societies they attack, but what is best. They despise individual liberty, critical thought, gender equality, religious tolerance, the rights of minorities and political pluralism. They do not criticize democracy because it sometimes fails to live up to its principles; they oppose those principles.

In areas of conflict, the terrorists have damaged attempts at peaceful and political solutions to problems. They choose killing and reject mutual recognition, accommodation, negotiation, understanding, and compromise.

In the face of such an enemy, we believe it is vital that democratic political forces in all countries unite. We need a global movement of solidarity linking together communities threatened by terror. United we stand against terror.

We can find our inspiration in the behavior of ordinary people in the immediate aftermath of terrorist atrocities. Always the story is the same. A fractured world is mended by the kindness of strangers. We see, amidst the pain and anguish, in the rubble of the Twin Towers, the wreckage of a London bus, the bloodied glass across a Tel Aviv street, and among the Mothers searching for their children in Baghdad, that a common humanity asserts itself. Extraordinary acts of courage and selflessness become commonplace. The impulse of solidarity overwhelms fear and help comes from strangers.

With every healing gesture between strangers we feel a candle of hope has been lit in a dark world. On 7/7 a London tube worker rushed towards the blast, running down a smoke-filled tunnel, torch in hand, to lead out the survivors.

These ordinary yet heroic rescuers teach us the ethic of responsibility. It is time to assert our common humanity against all who would divide us. It is time to forge communities united against terror, respectful of the dignity of difference, and organised to extend active solidarity to each other across the globe.

We are frequently urged to understand the terrorists, but too often the call to understand is code for justification and apology. There are always other, better, more effective, and more human ways of opposing injustice than by killing yourself and others in a symbolic act of hatred. Muslims who have pursued modern democratic politics have often been the first in the firing line of the terrorists. The road to a just solution in Israel-Palestine is signposted by 'mutual recognition' and 'political dialogue' not the blind alley of terrorism.

We stand firmly against the racists who seek to exploit the current tensions for their own agenda.

We stand firmly against those who apologize for the terrorists and who misrepresent terrorist atrocities as 'resistance'.

We offer our support and solidarity to all those within the Muslim faith who work in opposition to the terrorists and who seek to win young people away from extremism and nihilism, towards an engagement with democratic politics.

We believe that democracy and human rights are worth defending with all our strength. The human values of respect and tolerance and dignity are not 'western' but universal.

We are not afraid. But we are not vengeful. We believe the kindness of strangers has lit the way and this light will drive away the darkness. We want to join light to light to show that evil, injustice and oppression will not have the final word. Through these acts of human solidarity we will mend the world the terrorists have fractured.

We invite you to sign this statement

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 04:59 PM

In some ways people engaged in terrorist campaigns are very like governments (leaving aside the point that quite often governments are themselves engaged in what are by any reasonable standards "terrorist campaigns").   

Governments enter into a war with one set of war aims. But typically if that war lasts for any length of time, war aims change, sometimes drastically. Forget the stuff about WMDs, it's regime change that we set out to achieve; be realistic about that human rights stuff, it's stability that matters.

"Rationality" can mean two things - it can mean setting out to achieve ends which are "rational". Agreeing on what counts as rational is a minefield, but I doubt if I would see the overall goals of "Al Qaeda" as that kind of rational. (Though I wouldn't see the goals of a lot of the people in the other corner as too rational either.)

But it can also mean acting in a way that is designed to achieve the goals you have set yourself, however irrational those goals may be. And here I don't agree with writing off "Al Qaeda", because it seems to me they have rarely put a foot wrong in that way. And it doesn't seem to me that massacring innocent people implies any particular hate for them, just a ruthless decision that they are expendable, and that their death is useful in some way.

I don't think that the destruction of Hiroshima, 60 years ago this week, was the outcome of particular hate towards the people who lived there, or was irrational in that latter sense. I doubt very much if the train bombers actually felt much in the way of hate towards their fellow passengers. Insofar as the aim is to widen and deepen the rift between Muslims and the rest of society, by making Muslims a focus of hate and distrust, this bombing campaign could well acheve that, and therefore in that liited sense is perfectly rational.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 03:06 PM

Dianavan,
I would agree with you that the terrorists seem to want the things you mention - but I am a long way from certain that this is all they want. This could well be just the tip of an iceberg of suppressed anger, frustration and who knows what else. I don't find their actions rational (not by my definition of "rational", admittedly) and so I cannot even assume the rationality of what drives them. They seem to be striking blindly at innocents - that leads me to believe that blind hate plays a role. There may have been rational reasons there, once; but the operative word here is "blind". How to show such people the light - even assuming I have it to show in the first place?

Ake,
I never doubted your sincerity, mate. And if we differ in our opinions here and there - vive la difference!

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:25 PM

Wolgang - I can understand your point of view but do not agree with this statement:

"Each government should know that harbouring terrorists can be the end of the government and can force them personally to a life on the run."

How do you know if the government is harbouring terrorists or if terrorists have infiltrated the country?

Seems to me that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have the largest number of terrorist training camps and yet they are supposedly allies. Who decides if a government is 'harbouring' terrorists? Bin Laden invested in Sudan, don't you think that he has influence in that country as well?

Who will 'end the governments' of those countries? The fact is that we cannot defeat terrorism with conventional warfare.

El Greko you said, "To try and second-guess the specific reasons driving these specific terrorists is futile, no matter what slogans they shout."

I think its pretty clear that they want the U.S. and its allies to leave the Middle East and keep their hands off the resources. They want their own government not something imported from the West. Basically, I think they want control of their own economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:25 PM

You and your like....Mr Blair , Mr Straw and many more, are far more dangerous to the well being of the British people than I am.
As can be seen from the shambles you instigated in Iraq, and its consequences in London.

Your habit of using guest status and various nom de plumes makes your posting hard to follow.

If I have accused you wrongly ,I offer my apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:09 PM

Well actually ake I wasn't making a point about your vocab and I have never mentioned the "shooting up of Muslim areas", I haven't even seen the thread let alone quoted from it.

If I have ridiculed you or your opinions then tough. That's what I do, nobody's perfect. I like humour I think it's powerful, certainly far more powerful than simply swearing, which is something I don't do but you do.

I first joined the Labour party 30 years ago and ever since have been fighting the loony left who never get anything done, they just sit back and criticise. Well you know what? You're more than a nuisance you're dangerous, I see no difference between the loony left and the BNP scum.

Carry on with your nonsense and meanwhile Tony Blair will carry on making a dozen decisions every day that affect millions of people while you decide which thread to pollute.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:02 PM

Sorry El Greko...Cross posted again.

I'v just got in from work, and rushed off that post without re-reading.
I think your probably right about the wording of that passage, but you are a wordsmith, whereas I struggle on.

At least I'm sincere in the opinions I post...I hope you understand that?

I find it easier to put my thoughts into words in the morning,as after a hard days graft i feel the effect of too many years..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 02:00 PM

And not one of them is trying to justify the murder of their relatives by fellow muslims. Only you have taken that stance.

Oh no I haven't. If you had actually read my posts, you would know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:59 PM

carol we don't need to talk to them. We have heard what they have to say for ourselves. And not one of them is trying to justify the murder of their relatives by fellow muslims. Only you have taken that stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:57 PM

"One big demand of the IRA was a united Ireland. I consider it a correct decision by the Britsh governments not to give in to this demand (against the will of a small majority) and to insist that such a result (united Ireland) only can be reached by parliamentary and democratic means."

... but they never gave into any demands, Wolfgang.
Their refusal to deal with the United Ireland issue was a handyexcuse for not dealing with any of it.

That is why the situation in the World these days is such as we have.

Successive major World governments have refused to deal properly with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Osama Bin-Laden himself points to this festering sore as the focus of his jihad.

Would an intelligent person not try and focus a bit on that, perhaps?

Engagement might show a willingness from the major players in the present global guerilla war, to desist, when they see some of their demands being addressed.

It could be something for our respected leaders to wrap their heads around while they're waiting for the next strike

Would a responsible leader, or benevolent tyrant not try and do all in their power to protect their citizens, rather than let them suffer because of their own intransigence and higher adgendas?

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:56 PM

Guest, 24 Jul 05 - 01:48 PM, I have a better idea. Why don't you go and have a talk with them yourself? Ask them how they feel about the kinds of decisions they have to face every day as Muslims... how to be a good Muslim while watching many thousands of their fellow Muslims being slaughtered by the very government of the country they have adopted as their own, and for dubious reasons at best. I sure am glad I don't have to face those kinds of issues in my daily life. I bet if you had a talk with them and really listened to what it's like for them, you would have some difficulty continuing your current line of reasoning.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:53 PM

And your over dramatization just pours oil on troubled waters?

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:48 PM

Guest..Shakibus..Just noticed your usual snide remark about my lack of vocabulary.

Your right ,I have learned from Mr McGrath not just words, but how to debate without being offensive, to have regard for others opinions when presented sincerely, among many other things.

There are people on this forum whos opinions I respect, but you are so full of arrogance wind and piss, that any opinions you express are of little interest.

You continue to quote a phrase from one of my posts cocerning the shooting up of Muslim areas.

I thought everyone would have read of the targeting of a house in London by armed police using CS gas fired from a commandeered house across the street.
Apparently after the attack, a search of the premises by police yielded nothing.
Actions like this are sure to inflame an already fraught situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:48 PM

carol you really must put that to the families of the muslims murdered in London two weeks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:47 PM

Keep your check, Mohammed.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST,Shakey
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:44 PM

we have no alternative but to start giving ground in our foreign policy

Oh no El Grecko, akenaton's position is clearly appeasement.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST,Mohammad
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:41 PM

CarolC, your check is in the mail. Thanks for your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:40 PM

Ake, your last post crossed with mine. You were doing OK until your "giving ground in our foreign policy" statement. Not sure if I agree with that as stated - perhaps if you'd said "review our foreign policy in the light of international public opinion" I might have found it easier to swallow :-)

It's true that drawing parallels between a conventional war and terrorism is likely misleading; this "war" may not be won by conventional army tactics or strategies. But there are also other tools, more applicable: better police work; better intelligence; better community spirit; better understanding.

"Giving ground" can only be any use if it is a result of negotiation - so that you can focus your "giving in" where it matters. But there have been no attempts by the perpetrators to negotiate; no demand to sit round a table "or else". All we have seen is reprehensible action. To try and second-guess the specific reasons driving these specific terrorists is futile, no matter what slogans they shout. And let's say you second-guessed right, and you gave in on the right points, and they piped down; what protects you from the next batch of terrorists? Much better to understand your community, its needs and its fears. Then at least you have a better chance of not creating future terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:39 PM

carol there are huge sections of society that are disadvantaged one way or another. Women and disabled to name two. They don't strap explosives onto their backs and murder innocents.

There is an enormous difference between being "disadvantaged" and being invaded and occupied by foreign governments, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of innocent (civilian) lives. As McGrath pointed out, one doesn't need to be the one directly affected by these things to be impacted upon and influenced by them. When one member of NATO is threatened, all other member nations have agreed to come to their defense (with force of arms). This is not so different from the idea of Muslims coming to the defense of other Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:17 PM

Wolfgang, great post. I have nothing to say against it, and indeed the "evaluate every time" point is both well made and very valid.

But I think you could still be misunderstanding ake's stance, by equating a wish to understand what drives people to terrorism with "appeasement". I don't think ake suggested giving in to any terrorists' demands - I don't think that there have been any so far in any case, at least not from the organisations claiming to have been involved in the London bombings. Neither do I believe that his wish to understand any grievances by a section of the populace is driven by a wish to appease that section, but rather by a wish to identify and recognise any wrongs committed (or perceived) so as to be able to deal with them. And "dealing with them" can include education, better attempts at integration, and so on.

So, even while I (personally) agree with the Met's "shoot at the head" policy in these dire times, despite the senseless loss of an innocent life yesterday; even as I would not want the government to give in to any terrorist demands, if and when they come; I would still advocate a more honest review by the government of their actions to date, especially with regard to the Iraq occupation; and I would press for more understanding and integration of the various cultures living in Britain. Not to appease - but to make life better for us all.

Dogged determination that one's past actions have been all correct should not be confused for integrity; it's only bloody-mindedness; not a characteristic that makes for good neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:17 PM

carol there are huge sections of society that are disadvantaged one way or another. Women and disabled to name two. They don't strap explosives onto their backs and murder innocents.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 01:08 PM

Wolfgang...Thank you for that courteous and interesting reply.

I think we are both on the same wavelength regarding terrorism and how to combat it, but we do differ in how we see the present situation.

Although I am a severe critic of the direction of Western culture and the attitude of our government to other peoples and cultures, I do realise that we are basically dealing with madmen.
The problem is that these madmen are in a position to do dreadful damage to the ordinary people of Britain.
It is relalivly easy for them to sustain a terror campaign, and due to the fact that they "welcome death"there is very little that our security services can do to stop it.

I firmly believe that this is a war that we cannot win by aggression.
For once "might" is not at all sure to triumph,and we have no alternative but to start giving ground in our foreign policy.

Attempting to put pressure on the insurgents in Iraq has had disasterous results both here and in Iraq.

To compare a battle against terrorism with a conventional war ,is simplistic in the extreme, and the rhetoric of politicians who want to convince the people that they are in control of the situation, when in fact they are afraid to step back and re-examine their policy.

So in conclusion Wolfgang, I hope you understand that I am not an apologist for terror, but someone looking into an abiss, whos only concern is that this country does not descend into madness because of the folishness and inflexibility of our leaders ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:50 PM

Couldn't these various GUESTs on this thread who disagree with each other from time to time work out some way of differentiating each other? Then instead of putting in times and dates and such, they could just say "in my last post" like anyone else. Makes life easier for everyone.

..............
What exactly was the treatment of the four bombers in the UK Thta misses the point. You don't need to be mistreated yourself to be angry and "radicalised" perhaps by the mistreatment of other people with you feel an identity.

People who share a religious identity, such as Muslims, Jews or Christians of various sorts, are very likely feel this kind of identity in face of what they see as oppression or persecution of co-religionists, and that can lead to appalling things happening.   But when we seek for the roots of these events, it's no good just looking in the immediate circumstances of the individuals concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:47 PM

It was a BBC article.

Like I said, there are still plenty of people we can talk with who can tell us what is causing an increase in the number and scope of people who are becoming radicalized. There's nothing foolish in communicating with people. And we have been told by many of those already radicalized what their reasons are for that. The reasons given are pretty consistant with what I have already said.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:42 PM

I just finished reading an article that said they were angry about the way Muslims were being treated by the US and the UK in Iraq. I could use that as documentation to back up what I said, but since none of us is in the minds of these men, and we will never be able to ask them about it, it is impossible to know for sure all of the factors that culminated in their resorting to such violence. Any attempt to do so really is a foolish exercise.


You finished reading what article? Who are 'they?'

So by your own admission you trying to radicalize suicide bombers reasons are 'foolish.' Priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:38 PM

I just finished reading an article that said they were angry about the way Muslims were being treated by the US and the UK in Iraq. I could use that as documentation to back up what I said, but since none of us is in the minds of these men, and we will never be able to ask them about it, it is impossible to know for sure all of the factors that culminated in their resorting to such violence. Any attempt to do so really is a foolish exercise.

It is possible, however, to talk to the people who are still alive and who are becoming radicalized by the foreign policies of the governments of the US and UK. And I think that would be a very constructive exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:24 PM

In that case answer my question of 11.55 without saying you have to resort to guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:19 PM

My 24 Jul 05 - 11:33 AM post is based on fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:17 PM

So your statement was based on ????? Nothing! Don't bother taking a guess you obviously have no idea of these mens backgrounds in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 12:12 PM

I could take a guess, but it would only be a guess. But I can think of quite a few possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:55 AM

And that has been the flaw in the foreign policy of governments like those in the US and the UK. We have been treating a hell of a lot of people like they aren't people. This kind of treatment radicalizes them when they would not have been radicalized otherwise. And it makes them ripe for the picking for the extremists.

What exactly was the treatment of the four bombers in the UK that made them ripe for the picking?

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 11:33 AM

But here's the distinction that you aren't seeing in what some of us are saying, Wolfgang. At least in my case.

We don't give in to the demands of the extremists. What we do is behave justly and humanely toward the people those extremists will use as their available pool of recruits if we don't treat them justly and humanely. That's an important distinction, since the extremists (even Hitler) can't do their dirty work without the help of a lot of people.

And that has been the flaw in the foreign policy of governments like those in the US and the UK. We have been treating a hell of a lot of people like they aren't people. This kind of treatment radicalizes them when they would not have been radicalized otherwise. And it makes them ripe for the picking for the extremists.

What needs to happen is to deprive the extremists of any available pool of recruits by treating people like people, and being entirely above reproach ourselves in our own behavior toward our fellow human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:56 AM

Quite simply the best post I've seen on MC

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jul 05 - 09:37 AM

Ake,

let me tell you what I consider a very fundamental omission (and mistake) in your thinking when posting about terrorism in this and many other threads. I see a similar mistake in some others' thinking (or at least argumentation).

Your thinking reduced to a very short summary (it may look like a parody due to the shortness, but that is not my intention):
(1) Understand the reasons for terrorism. Understand what they fight for and what grieves them.
(2) Remove everything that grieves them and do nothing that makes terrorism (more) likely.

At no moment I have seen in your thinking any indication of the third stage (between stage 1 and stage 2), namely an evaluation whether one wants (or should want) to give in to a demand or not.

Two examples from history:
(1) The British govenments confronted with terrorism from the IRA (I only look at that part now though there has been loyalist terrorism as well) had to try to understand (I completely agree with that part of your thinking) the reasons for the terrorism from the IRA and to look at the demands. One very big reason was the treatment of the nationalist community by the unionists (burning down houses, forceful evictions, gerrymandering 'majorities', differential treatment in housing decisions and in jobs etc). I consider it a very big mistake by many successive govenments not to have reacted early and quickly to these demands even against the will of a unionist majority. One big demand of the IRA was a united Ireland. I consider it a correct decision by the Britsh governments not to give in to this demand (against the will of a small majority) and to insist that such a result (united Ireland) only can be reached by parliamentary and democratic means.

(2) When the British government was confronted with demands from the Nazi government (verbatim or by action) it tried for a long time to appease the Nazi government. They also could have given them Poland or whatever came after without acting. They did act and as a result of their action many British people died and increased terrorism (by bombs from above) was one of the results. But I think they did the right thing at that time. Any politics that has as the sole aim to reduce the number of own people killed in the short run is predictable and invites to further (terrorist) threats.

And in that sense 'standing up to terror' is a good idea. There should be no immediate reward for trying to enforce an aim by terror.

If one reads what the hard core of those fundamentalist Muslim terrorists really want one can only say: We'll never agree to give you that (caliphate, sharia, treatment of women and people with other faiths...). Even if you kill more of us.

On the other hand, they make their immediate demands (retreat from Iraq, for instance) much more palatable for the large majority of Muslims who mostly do neither share their final aims nor approve of the methods used. To look how one can remove quickly the need for a demand that is shared by a large fraction of their co-religionists from which they sample the new recruits is a good idea that I agree with.

But one has to decide at each stage anew whether one wants to give in to one demand and not make this decision for once and all. One has to accept that such decisions will cost lives of the own and other populations.

I still consider the decision to attack Afghanistan the correct decision. Each government should know that harbouring terrorists can be the end of the government and can force them personally to a life on the run. That decision could hope for some understanding even among Muslims in that historic situation. I consider the decision to attack Iraq a bloody (in both senses) error. Understanding that move was very low even among most non-Muslims. A move that can be seen as a defense against an attack (like Afghanistan could be seen) is different from a move that hardly can be pictured as defensive (Iraq).

If one does not make the evaluation whether one wants to give in each time anew one gives the wrong signal to terrorists and risks more lives in the long run.

What if British rightwing terrorists attack Muslim targets and lives with bombs and just demand that all Muslims have to be expatriated? What if two terrorist groups threaten to target London with mutually exclusive aims (one group: we'll bomb you if there'll be no united Ireland, the other: we'll bomb you if there is no union)?

A politic that puts appeasements first at all (long term) costs is wrong.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 07:10 PM

"...the basic motivation of the war the terrorists feel themselves to have to fight."

The issues that radicalise people aren't necessarily the same as issues and the causes that they subsequently adopt. Once people have got sucked into identifying with a radical ideology, the human tendency is to take on board all kinds of other stuff.

I'm sure there were all kinds of ordinary Germans who got into supporting the Nazis because they were angry about being unemployed, or about political corruption or liked the pageantry and the strength through joy stuff. And went on from there to be drawn into other things.

So there is no contradiction between pointing to the war on Iraq as a crucial factor in driving many Muslims into the arms of the extremists, and recognising that the extremists have a wider agenda than Iraq. (In fact my conviction all along has been that while most Muslims - indeed most people outside of the USA - deplored the war, for the people at the heart of "Al Qaeda" it was something to be welcomed as an enormous success.)

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:55 PM

If we give the police carte blanche to shoot up Muslim areas

What are you referring to?

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 06:43 PM

Apologies McGrath and Bruce, I actually posted to the wrong thread.

I had intended to respond to some of the disgraceful comments on the other thread pertaining to the shooting in London.

I know there are some good people here and I include you both in their number, but there are also many who emerge from under their stones at times like these, spouting venom.

They forget that the bombings on the underground, the execution of the young man by trigger happy police are part of a much bigger picture directed by neo cons in America and Thatcherites in Britain.
I believe this to be the most dangerous period of modern history including the "Cold War" and we must be much more careful about how we react to terrorism. The short sighted among us still babble of "standing up to terror"...Smashing the cells... Kill them all!

Its unworkable, the terrorists are among us ,they could be our sons or daughters,our neighbours, people who service our cars or serve our food.
If we give the police carte blanche to shoot up Muslim areas and continue with our policy in Iraq, the next bomb could be silent and kill thousands and still we would be no nearer to defeating terrorism.

We who try to understand why terrorism exists, are abused for being "apologists", but in reality those who support policy which makes terrorism more likely to occur are the biggest danger to our people.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 05:50 PM

Ake,

On the worst day of your life you have never been a racist. That is just not you. If anyone said that--well, they're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 05:41 PM

I agree with a lot of what that second article has to say, even about the motivations of the most extreme Islamists. Where I would tend to differ with some people on that subject is simply that I believe that just about everything the governments of the US and Britain have done, ostensibly for the purpose of "defeating" these extremist Islamists has, in actuality, had the effect of assisting them in their efforts, and making them far bigger and stronger than they would be otherwise. The US and Britain are getting the exact opposite results from the ones they say they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 05:15 PM

BNP seeks to make capital out of bombings (Guardian)

It's not only about Iraq (Guardian)

What it adds up to is a more mixed picture than either Blair or the anti-war movement has allowed. Iraq has played a key part - of course it has - in angering large numbers of young Muslims, pulling them towards an extremist message once confined to the lunatic fringe. But that message is not only about Iraq, Afghanistan or even the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza - and we delude ourselves if we think it is.

Why I link to the first article is obvious: There's no need to help them.

I like in particular the second article, for it shows in which way the analysis predominant among Mudcaters falls short of understanding the basic motivation of the war the terrorists feel themselves to have to fight.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 04:55 PM

"most of you" - I think if you checked on the actual numbers of posts and of posters on these issues and how they've stacked up, you'd want to revise that opinion akenaton.

Especially if you leave out the nameless GUESTs (on both sides), since there's no way of knowing how many or how few people are in behind the mask.

Subject: RE: BS: Here we go again in London
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jul 05 - 04:03 PM

Myself and others on this thread have been wrongly accused of excusing terrorism.

Many of these same accusers are now trying to justify a cold blooded killing of an innocent man in front of dozens of terrified passengers.

I used to think a fresh breeze blew through the pages of Mudcat, these days the fetid stench of hatred permeates the threads.
I thought Folkies to be open minded, caring..for their brothers and sisters, and above all, supporters of truth and justice.

The opinions on this thread sicken me.

Yes "welcome to the police state" most of you will be quite happy here.....Ake