Bomb in London

Remove all ads!

Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.

We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.

 

I do not think it is good to compare Muslim terrorists with Christian fundamentalists or even Christian activists. And SatansBF, you are wrong about the Christian right being simple nationalism in unorthodox religiouse gise. While I am not one of them I do know that they practice their religion honestly -- if you are talking about James Dobson and friends -- and are also patriotic. You do not have to choose one or the other.

I also do not think that the best thing to do about terrorism is ignore it -- you have to fight back against it and eradicate, imprison, or convert the terrorists.

-- I edited this to say that this is quite a interesting board for one dedicated to CRPGs!

 

There have been atrocities committed throughout history in the name of religion, and at the base of most of them is a corruption of the basis of the religion. That said, different religions were based on different principles. It is my understanding that Muhammad, seeing iniquity and the unfairness to certain groups started a revolution (one inspired by God if you are a follower of Islam), and it was a violent beginning. There have been many nations that have risen to greatness from a start that was steeped in blood (including my own). Islam is much like this IMO. However, this violent beginning gives those looking for the opportunity to justify continued violence the rationalization they desire.

To take selected quotes out of the context they were written in, and the context of the history surrounding them, is an expedient way to corrupt their real message. However it is not Spellbound who is doing this, it is the extremists within the Muslim religion. Spelly is just stating what is happening with a small subset of the followers of Islam. However, the society of the Middle East, which was formed around the teachings of Mohammed, has not chosen to cast out these extremists and the reasons for this need to be explored.

The western world, due to our open societies, exposes and rebuffs (or at least insulates) extremists when they expose themselves. However, the society of the ME is averse to exposing a ridiculing these extremists, as their society is not based upon freedom, IMO. Many in the ME (probably most) do not agree with the actions of these extremists, but their society is such that they allow the extremists to exist. If we wish to stop this, a new paradigm must be introduced to these people, one that allows for individual judgment, and that does not encourage blind faith in anything, including religion. How this can be accomplished is open for debate, but it cannot happen by ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.

 

That might be the most insightful thing I've heard in a long time regarding the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, it does not seem that this view is shared by many of our current politicians. (Note, I'm not bashing the Bush administration in particular with that comment. While they are in the best position to affect a change, the Democrats are just as guilty of this.) More to the point however, even if this view was shared by most in power at this time, it is one thing to say it, and quite another thing to put it into practice. That's the main problem we have. If we could magically instill this ability into people of the Middle East, we might really see some change, but I do not see a mechanism available to plant the seeds of this mindset in the Middle East.

 

What has pissed me off, is that the suicide bombers who did this, were born and bred in England.

 

If you were on a holy quest to wipe out non-muslims, why would you plant bombs in a place like London which has a massive muslim population? You're likely to kill more muslims than infidels, which would surely be counter-productive.

 

Harbourboy, according to the 2001 census in the UK there were just under 1.6 million Muslims in the country or abour 2.7 per cent of the populace at that point. Quite a lot of that is as you quite righlty assert in London. However, many of those Muslim people live in the more deprived boroughs, like the one I live in here, Hackney. About 15 per centr of all residents are Muslim here. Where the bombs went of is generally where tourists are likely to gather or commuters. Although I don't doubt there were Muslim killed and hurt in the blast your chance of wiping out more of them than the 'infidels' would be highly improbasble. Also, one morally repulsive justification given by some fundamentalist is that Muslims killed by such attacks automatically become martyrs and enter paradsie,so that makes it all okay doesn't it ?

 

So the DLR is safe then? That's always full of muslim kids, like the ones who go to the school near Limehouse that I used to be a reading volunteer at. I remember being assigned to one kid who asked if I was a muslim. When I said he 'no', he wouldn't speak to me again. Luckily, the next kids I was assigned to was a bit more accepting of my unholiness.

 

Two of the areas targeted in the bomb attack have large Muslim communities (Aldgate and Edgware Road). In fact, one in seven Londoners is a Muslim. This should make us all realise that the perpetrators of these crimes do not believe that any life has value, regardless of faith.

 

I think Marcus said the way of it -- that these people think that any Muslims that happened to be caught in the "firestorm", should be thankful that their life was sacrificed for the cause. It's their highest honor.

 

So the lives of all muslims in London is forfeit then (given that the fundamentalists would, if they were able to, wipe out every human in that city)?

 

Well, remember, in this radical faction, sacrifice of one's life in the name of Allah is the highest of all honors....one of jubilance and joy. These people don't view death the same as we do. That's why threatening them with their own death is no real threat to them -- they welcome it and see it as their service. (Although it's funny we don't see Bin Laden and his crew lining themselves up to offer themselves.) I guess it's because they figure there's more work to be done.

 

Barmy A, HB, and Nakia: Sorry if I was obscure and elliptical. I was thinking of Bush flying to Nebraska after 9/11--Clinton got to New York before he did--then giving a speech that was a declaration of war and proposing a (previously prepared) bill that subverted the rule of law, and I was impressed by the very different British response to a terrorist attack. Also, I was disgusted by much of the network commentary in this country which treated the bombings as merely an opportunity to raise the level of fear.

 

Great idea, you tell me who they are and I'll do the shooting... or perhaps we should try the "Final Solution"?

 

Cernak

I second that, word for word. It's basically what I have tried to say all along.

And Barmy, you have brought up good arguments

Carcaroth

Let's just invade Iran, Syria and some of the other usual suspects, too. Like: Beat your children every day, if you don't know what they did, they do.

What is often overlooked is that Al Quaeda is now in Iraq because the U.S. went there. Had the U.S. gone to Egypt, Somalia or Morocco they'd come there. It's all about ptovoking a repressive reaction to say to the undecided sympathisers: 'See, I'm right - he is the devil!', as Barmy rightly hinted on.
The British have learned that the hard way in Northern Ireland, and were quite successful there.

You may not be able to change the hardcore whackos, you'll probably never will, you indeed may need to kill them. Beyond that, it is all about denying them followers and support to keep the fire small and let it burn out.

 

Poor analogy, it has been tried and it failed. Religious fervor is not a normal fire in the sense that it needs fuel and oxygen. It provides its own fuel and oxygen. They will always find some slight or reason to declare jihad, as they fundamentally do not agree with any other way of life. The nature of the society in the ME makes the people who live there susceptible to this type of manipulation. Logic doesn't work here as their movement is based entirely on emotion and faith.

The only way this threat is going to be eliminated is through a major change in paradigm on one side or the other. Either the ME joins the rest of the enlightened world, or we join them in both religion and theologically based government. They will be satisfied with nothing less.

 

As to the second half of the that quote -- Just how do you propose to do that? The "hardcore whackos" are growing in size....more and more people are answering their call to arms. Would you ask them "Pwetty pweeese, don't join this violent group....the ones who share your heritage, the ones who interpret the Koran slightly different than you, but still are following the same book you were taught from, from birth?" "Please....come just us, the infidels!....we have more to offer you!"

The point is, the neutrals -- if they're going to swing in any direction, are more likely to join people of their own religion and upbringing. Or perhaps you think that the terrorists get their numbers from Christian-types?? Only if it were that easy. Deny them followers?? -- the radical terrorists have a pool of people that already share similar ideologies.

 

Fight Back!

Start a Christian Wacko Sect that teaches glory in slaying infidels, promises 70 ministering virgins to those who die in this cause and considers C-4 explosives to be a real swanky belt.

 

Spelly, Darkwolf,
it has dawned to some of the the decisionmakers in D.C. that invading Iraq may well have achieved the opposite of what was originally intended as far as fighting Al Quaeda is concerned. That's a fact, and it's stated in an unusually self-critical report of the Defense Policy Board.

Ponder on these lines a bit.

This is exactly what that british diplomat, who described Bush as Al Quaeda's best recruiting sergeant, was talking about.

When the CIA is right, Bush has done even more than that: By invading Iraq, he turned the country into a real-world laboratory for urban combat.

Two decades ago Afghanistan became the magnet for Islamic militants, who later on became the Al Qaeda network operating under the protection of the Taliban. While the Afghan operation was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report says that Iraq is now providing extremists with more comprehensive skills, including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.

If only one of these folks is right, the 'let's cut 'em down' option you seem to prefer is going to be a self-defeating, terrible mistake that is going to haunt our children.

This approach would then perpetuate the problem and make it much, much worse.

That's worth a thought or two.

 

I see that they seem to have found 4 suspects in this case, although they'd better well be guilty now that there names have been broadcast all over the world and all their neighbours and relatives have been interviewed.

It seems that one of the four had been on holiday in Pakistan and visited a religious school. The other three were his friends and nobody suspected them of being the least bit insurgent.