PDA

View Full Version : k-punk on terror



Woebot
15-07-2005, 07:53 AM
Was really feeling this:

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005847.html

If "feeling" is the right word. Absolutely spot on. And the section about Blair/Bush clumsily, idiotically, calling for a war on terror was superb. Its just right isnt it? We have been turned, aburdly, into "warriors" they have succeeded in legitimasing Terrorism! Nuts.

Mark also managed, almost eeriily, to predict that the bombers were British.

But this:

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/005874.html

especially this:

"He tells us that we are in a war. But to many Muslims - not 'mad mullahs', but , amongst others, young men from 'ordinary' backgrounds - it is as obvious as it is to Blair what the right, the only side, to be on is. It is the side of the poor and the oppressed, not the side of the the hyper-privileged and the massively well-armed. The rage, the righteous sense of injustice that led those four to give their lives and take the lives of others - and please, do not describe what they did as 'cowardly' ; 'brutal' by all means, but not 'cowardly', and certainly nowhere near as cowardly as the Powell doctrine of bombing from a great height - that anger needs to be channeled by other forces, forces which don't counter oppression with repression, which don't transform rage into outrage."

I had problems with. I know what he's saying but it almost feels like k-punk is trying to brush aside the issue that there still is some distinction between War and Peace. The US military, although they needlessly kill umpteen hundreds (thousands?) of civilians are actually aiming for military targets. OK, obviously this could spiral into a discussion as to what entails a military target, but I do believe (perhaps naively?) that there is a distinction.

The UK suicide bombers may not have been "cowardly" but they did go out of their way to specifically target ordinary civilians.

In the same light as the UK bombs I found this particularly chilling:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4678207.stm

Rachel Verinder
15-07-2005, 08:25 AM
one supposes that any sensible government would realise that one day they will have to SIT DOWN AND TALK with these "terrorists" but i assume that we'll make the same mistake as we did with the IRA and there will be another 30 years of bombing before we come to our collective senses and start understanding why this is happening, from their perspective as well as from ours.

alternatively we could start treating muslims in britain with proper respect instead of marginalising and harassing them (look at the sickening way in which the media have used the same memes with the london bombings as they did with the marchioness - all these YOUNG, WHITE people with CAREERS [which if you look at the demographics of the victims is wrong on all three counts]), then younger muslims wouldn't become disillusioned and disaffected and need to troop off to afghanistan/wherever to be hoodwinked/indocrinated by Bin Laden types who are of course essentially Kapitalists with an Agenda, just wearing a different uniform.

hombre
15-07-2005, 11:23 AM
I had problems with. I know what he's saying but it almost feels like k-punk is trying to brush aside the issue that there still is some distinction between War and Peace. The US military, although they needlessly kill umpteen hundreds (thousands?) of civilians are actually aiming for military targets. OK, obviously this could spiral into a discussion as to what entails a military target, but I do believe (perhaps naively?) that there is a distinction.

The UK suicide bombers may not have been "cowardly" but they did go out of their way to specifically target ordinary civilians.

yeah, sure, the us military never targets civilians as can be seen from hiroshima to fallujah and many other places. let's not be silly. one of the reasons why radical muslims are able to recruit young muslims is that westerners stubbornly refuse to admit their own barbarism. there is not much difference between "accidently" bombing a wedding and what happened in london last week (especially if you are at the receiving end yourself). i don't see american soldiers and generals being brough to justice for their "errors".

Rachel Verinder
15-07-2005, 11:48 AM
check also the staggering hypocrisy of the VE Day "celebrations" last Sunday - marketed as "a show of defiance" but actually a show of "our balls" (i.e. our weapons), i.e. one of the factors which contributed to 7/7 in the first place.

An awful lot of this is down to the serious problems which Britain as a nation seems to have about getting past/letting go of WWII.

rewch
15-07-2005, 12:24 PM
The US military, although they needlessly kill umpteen hundreds (thousands?) of civilians are actually aiming for military targets. OK, obviously this could spiral into a discussion as to what entails a military target, but I do believe (perhaps naively?) that there is a distinction.

currently minimum of 22,838 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

& the way they collate results:

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

this was in response to the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 civilian deaths & that was last November

henrymiller
19-07-2005, 01:23 PM
iraq may have provided subjective motivation for the suicide bombers ('righteous anger' nuts -- everyone feels righteous anger about the war; these people felt something else entirely), but comparing casualties is mindless. sure the US militaryhas targeted civilians; how has that anything to do with the bombing of british civilians by other britons in britain? the 'militants' in iraq also target civilians. lots of posts here including k-punk's assume an identity of interests and beliefs among muslims that doesn't square with reality.


Mark also managed, almost eeriily, to predict that the bombers were British.

to be fair to the uk press, the existence of potential terrorists in britain has been fairly well-publicized!

owen
19-07-2005, 03:51 PM
yeah sure but there was a lot of 'THIS is why we should close our borders' stuff in the aftermath of the attacks...which obv makes no difference with suicide bombers from yorkshire

hombre
19-07-2005, 04:06 PM
iraq may have provided subjective motivation for the suicide bombers ('righteous anger' nuts -- everyone feels righteous anger about the war; these people felt something else entirely), but comparing casualties is mindless. sure the US militaryhas targeted civilians; how has that anything to do with the bombing of british civilians by other britons in britain? the 'militants' in iraq also target civilians. lots of posts here including k-punk's assume an identity of interests and beliefs among muslims that doesn't square with reality.

i'm not sure if i understood you right, but every serious expert on the middle east understands that the war on terror has helped recruiting new terrorists and even that the majority of them did not feel attracted to radical islamism before the war started. this is reality

there are different groups fighting for different reasons, that's true. the groups targeting civilians in iraq seem to be mostly sunni radicals who attack shiites, for example (the majority of attacks in iraq are directed against foreign troops and collaborators, though). but terrorist attacks on western targets are inspired by the injustice caused by western imperialism in the region and not much else.

henrymiller
19-07-2005, 07:30 PM
of course the war on terror and the war on iraq have been big recruiting agents, i would never say otherwise. however, ithe attribution of every success of radical islam to western 'imperialism' is simplistic at best. if it certainly is unjust, so is the rule of the taliban, and of saddam, which were no more legitimate than any US puppet dictator; indeed saddam *was* in some ways a puppet.

it also doesn't much help in terms of the practicalities of what was to be done after 9/11. i'm trying to think of some utopian state that would do *nothing* about 9/11, but i'm having trouble here. of course the WOT has been a fuck-up, but it's almost certainly moonshine to think that if the US had done nothing the problem would have just gone away of its own accord.

"the majority of attacks in iraq are directed against foreign troops and collaborators, though"

my, what an interesting turn of phrase. what do you make of the position of the kurds?

komaba
20-07-2005, 01:29 AM
The US and UK don't target civilians? - that's just something we say to make ourselves feel better about killing them. When Bush and Blair decided to invade first Afghanistan then Iraq they knew civilians would be killed and therefore are responsible for their deaths and injuries just as the London bombers are responsible for the deaths and injuries of July 7th. People seem to think there's a difference in killing when you are an elected representative of a country and can claim to be acting in defense of your country but killing is killing.

On Blair's stupid declaration that the terrorists represent 'Evil'... he needs to contemplate this equation: Legitimate Grievance + Oppression = Terrorism. I actually think that Blair is rather more evil than the bombers. As has been written elsewhere, the bombers were undoubtedly enraged by their perception of the injustices meted out on Muslims by the UK and its allies. They were likely identified as youthfully emotional and seeking certainty by their recruiters, ripe for guiding in the dark arts of terrorism. There's no doubt that what they did was wrong and inexcusable but that they did it has to be understandable, if we can look at it all coldly and rationally. Blair is another fish all together and is covering his sorry arse with his protestations that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the bombings. For him to do otherwise would mean taking some responsibility for his actions, and like Bush, he has shown himself unwilling to do so. He was warned left, right and centre that attacking Iraq would lead to increased support for anti-West terrorists and would turn Iraq into a training ground for terrorists.

All this 'War on Terrorism' crap... what happened to 'tough on crime and on the causes of crime'? As has already been pointed out in this thread, of course our actions in the world are intimately connected to the reactions to it. As Ray Charles sang, it takes two to tango'. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Political and economic expediency as ever stops the meaningful tackling of terrorism. Get out of Iraq and let the Iraqis run their country. Pay for the damage we've done to that country. Stop dealing with the Saudis for their cheap oil. Stop supporting Pakistan's military dictatorship. Stop selling arms. Stop supporting tyrants like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Endure a fall in our standard of living in order to put ourselves where our mouths are. Cancel African 'debt'. Open our markets to products from the developing world. And.... mutter mutter

MBM
20-07-2005, 01:53 AM
What I find annoying is that everybody seems to want to blame someone.

"Terrorists - they're evil. Blame them!"
"No - they're oppressed, Tony Blair is evil. Blame him!"

There is a quest for that nice, warm glow of moral superiority that comes from knowing you are in the right. And someone, somewhere is wrong. And preferably EVIL!!!

So what are you actually going to do about all this?

N.B. To my knowledge, none of the London bombers were Iraqis. None of the people they killed were directly involved in the decision to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. Have their actions made life better for a single Iraqi? I doubt it.

Re: US/UK killing of civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan. Horrible, unpleasant and (in the long run) possibly futile. Are the US and its allies guilty of war crimes? Not as far as I can see.

Rachel Verinder
20-07-2005, 06:23 AM
is the establishment "guantanamo bay" known to you?

komaba
20-07-2005, 07:55 AM
You might be right - maybe no one is evil and what we are witnessing is man being stupid.

What I am doing about it is saying what I think.

By the same coin, none of the Iraqis who have been killed had anything to do with the decision to invade their country. Has that invasion benefitted 25,000 dead Iraqis and the many thousands who have lost family and friends? Or however many Afghanis by the invasion of Afghanistan?

The main war crimes were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Wars of agression, both. So yes, you might try looking further.

MBM
20-07-2005, 08:13 AM
Has that invasion benefitted 25,000 dead Iraqis and the many thousands who have lost family and friends? Or however many Afghanis by the invasion of Afghanistan?

That remains to be seen. I am not in Iraq or Afghanistan (but then I doubt you are either) so I don't know if life is better or worse for most people. I am quite glad that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are no longer in power - but whether life is better for the majority of people, I dunno.

The main war crimes were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Wars of aggression, both. So yes, you might try looking further.

Different cases. The invasion of Afghanistan was an immediate response to an apparent threat. War of aggression? Yip. War crime? Not necessarily.

Iraq is a much harder war to justify. Basically it boiled down to:
1. Possession of WMDs
2. Saddam is a very nasty man.

And now 1. has been proved to be false and while 2. is true, it's also true of a lot of other countries.

So what does the US do? Leave?

is the establishment "guantanamo bay" known to you?

Never heard of it. Yip, the suspension of rights and the sanction of torture of suspects is against the Geneva Convention. Probably a reasonable case for war crimes there. But not at the level I suspect Komaba is gunning for...

henrymiller
20-07-2005, 08:46 AM
I actually think that Blair is rather more evil than the bombers. As has been written elsewhere, the bombers were undoubtedly enraged by their perception of the injustices meted out on Muslims by the UK and its allies.

i'm missing bits of the argument. would the leeds bombers have been justified in targetting random muslims (as they in fact did) because muslims are killing muslims in iraq, or because muslims (were) oppressing muslims in afghanstian? i was against the war, but i don't think it was entirely unjust (like i'm in a court, outside the historical process...).


Legitimate Grievance + Oppression = Terrorism.

how much were these guys from leeds oppressed, exactly?and what was their legitimate grievance. as a citizen who was lied into war by blair, i too have a legitimate grievance against the government, but that doesn't provide anything like grounds for bombing people. 'coldly and rationally', why would muslims in leeds necessarily have common cause with muslims in iraq (who, in any case, were oppressed by saddam ffs!)? on the basis that they are muslims? then why murder muslims in london?

hombre
20-07-2005, 09:34 AM
it also doesn't much help in terms of the practicalities of what was to be done after 9/11. i'm trying to think of some utopian state that would do *nothing* about 9/11, but i'm having trouble here. of course the WOT has been a fuck-up, but it's almost certainly moonshine to think that if the US had done nothing the problem would have just gone away of its own accord.

apart from the fact that the us actually created the problem in the first place it should be obvious that some people seized the opportunity to pursue their own agenda. i don't think "the war on terror" has much to do with fighting against terrorism.

of course something must be done about the problem - you have to understand why the islamic fundamentalism is able to thrive and then try to create an environment where this would be more difficult if not outright impossible. but i don't think the american ruling elite are interested in that. they have other priorities.



what do you make of the position of the kurds?
i honestly don't know what to make of their position.




What I find annoying is that everybody seems to want to blame someone.

"Terrorists - they're evil. Blame them!"
"No - they're oppressed, Tony Blair is evil. Blame him!"

There is a quest for that nice, warm glow of moral superiority that comes from knowing you are in the right. And someone, somewhere is wrong. And preferably EVIL!!!

this is what blair says, not the people who criticise him. most of them are actually quite rational and do not simplify things like you suggest they do.




N.B. To my knowledge, none of the London bombers were Iraqis. None of the people they killed were directly involved in the decision to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. Have their actions made life better for a single Iraqi? I doubt it.

that's irrelevant. it's no secret that muslims have a feeling of common identity as muslims and that they perceive this war as a war against them as a religious group. it should also be noted that the majority of foreign fighters in iraq are arabs and one must wonder how "foreign" arabs are in an arabic country.




Re: US/UK killing of civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan. Horrible, unpleasant and (in the long run) possibly futile. Are the US and its allies guilty of war crimes? Not as far as I can see.
you must be blind. of course the us and its allies are guilty of war crimes - from starting aggressive wars to particular actions during their military operations. i suppose you have a very narcissistic view of the west, otherwise this should be obvious to you.



i'm missing bits of the argument. would the leeds bombers have been justified in targetting random muslims (as they in fact did) because muslims are killing muslims in iraq, or because muslims (were) oppressing muslims in afghanstian? i was against the war, but i don't think it was entirely unjust (like i'm in a court, outside the historical process...).

this question is not directed at me, but i will reply nevertheless. you are misrepresenting the points being made. the bombers are not justified in what they did. we are just trying to understand why they acted the way they did. we need to look at the reasons behind their actions and if there is an injustice we need to recognise that and try to improve the situation, especially if out governments are responsible for that injustice. we need to take action against extremists of course, but as i said before, destroying the environment in which they can thrive is the most effective way of doing that.



how much were these guys from leeds oppressed, exactly?and what was their legitimate grievance. as a citizen who was lied into war by blair, i too have a legitimate grievance against the government, but that doesn't provide anything like grounds for bombing people. 'coldly and rationally', why would muslims in leeds necessarily have common cause with muslims in iraq (who, in any case, were oppressed by saddam ffs!)? on the basis that they are muslims? then why murder muslims in london?
*yawn* @ the point about muslims being oppressed by saddam and terrorists killing other muslims (incidently, until fairly recently radical muslims did avoid killing other muslims, just so ya know). again, as i said before, the muslims worldwide have legitimate grievances and that enables radical groups to find recruits among them. i mean, it's not that many other people care about their grievances, is it? as can be seen even in this forum, too many people in the west stubbornly refuse to confront reailty and powerful people in the west have vested interest in not confronting it. perhaps if there were more reasonable and viable alternatives muslims would support them? who knows.

henrymiller
20-07-2005, 10:15 AM
it's no secret that muslims have a feeling of common identity as muslims and that they perceive this war as a war against them as a religious group.

basically you won't ascribe rational thought to muslims. you take 'objective' causes -- some of which i'd go along with in calling legitimate, some of which i would not -- and then pose a mechanistic, unconscious 'response' from undifferentiated muslims worldwide. fuck a common identity based on religious affiliations anyway, really, but even if this exists justice is not automatically identical with resolving the grievances of the islamists.

in some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. the restoration of the ba'athist regime, or indeed the taliban, would not be 'justice'. some resolution of israel/palestine would be; but, again, the destruction of israel, which is probably the desire of the islamists, would be unjust. where in all this is the will of all muslims? if the bombers freally felt this 'common identity', they would probably not have killed east londoners.


it should also be noted that the majority of foreign fighters in iraq are arabs and one must wonder how "foreign" arabs are in an arabic country.

again, the foreign/national duality *is*a tricky one, i'm not denying it; but quite clearly the arabs in iraq are not a homogenous or united mass or 'nation'. again, the case of the kurds comes up.

hombre
20-07-2005, 11:37 AM
basically you won't ascribe rational thought to muslims. you take 'objective' causes -- some of which i'd go along with in calling legitimate, some of which i would not -- and then pose a mechanistic, unconscious 'response' from undifferentiated muslims worldwide. fuck a common identity based on religious affiliations anyway, really, but even if this exists justice is not automatically identical with resolving the grievances of the islamists.

like it or not, a common identity based on religious affiliation is a relity not only in the islamic world. furthermore, noone is talking about resolving the "grievances" of islamists. we are talking about legitimate grievances of ordinary muslims. and of course not all their grievances are legitimate. however, there is no doubt that a few major ones are legitimate and they are the most important problem here.

talking about the baath or taliban dictatorships is silly. it is not a secret that the us supported both the iraqi dictatorship and the forces from which the taliban eventually emerged. once the geopolitical goals of the us changed the baathists and the taliban turned into enemies. saying that the us is fighting for democracy and human rights may sound convincing to you, but not to the most people in the world. talking about the brutality of the baathists and the taliban reeks of hypocrisy if you know just a little bit of history of the region.



again, the foreign/national duality *is*a tricky one, i'm not denying it; but quite clearly the arabs in iraq are not a homogenous or united mass or 'nation'. again, the case of the kurds comes up.
people identify with many things on a local, national or global level. there is a common arab identity just as there are various divisions within that entity.

kurds don't identify with iraq at all.

henrymiller
20-07-2005, 11:58 AM
people identify with many things on a local, national or global level. there is a common arab identity just as there are various divisions within that entity.

some of these 'divisions' among arabs are just as acute as the 'divisions' between arabs and jews. what that has to do with british men whose family origins are in pakistan remains perilously unclear; and just as i would not expect all americans to identify with the 'national' war on iraq, neither would i expect all muslims to back the 'resistance' (as, indeed, they do not).

hombre
20-07-2005, 12:28 PM
some of these 'divisions' among arabs are just as acute as the 'divisions' between arabs and jews. what that has to do with british men whose family origins are in pakistan remains perilously unclear;
not really. i mentioned a common arab identity just to point out that most "foreign" fighters in iraq are not so foreign after all. i also mentioned a common muslim identity and many (if not most) muslims identify with that despite all differences among them. and i don't really have the impression that the uk is a multicultural paradise where minorites have no reason to feel alienated. especially if their country wages wars in which a lot of their kind are being killed and humiliated for all the wrong reasons.



and just as i would not expect all americans to identify with the 'national' war on iraq, neither would i expect all muslims to back the 'resistance' (as, indeed, they do not).
this is true. just as there seems to be some fighting among various resistance groups in iraq (probably ex-baathist nationalists against islamists), there are numerous differences among arabs and muslims on nearly every issue. but that's beside the point. not all muslims will turn into terrorists even if they feel intimidated by what is going on. that's a no-brainer. the point is, why is radical islamism able to thrive? who is responsible for the situation that makes many young muslims embrace dangerous and reactionary ideas? can we change it and would the necessary change improve lives of the people concerned or not? also would muslims embrace other political groups that fight for their rights if such groups existed and were reasonably effective?

k-punk
20-07-2005, 01:52 PM
To Henry Miller: I don't at all assume a coherent agenda shared by all Muslims. That would be preposterous. But the faith demands loyalty be shown first of all to the umma, the global Muslim 'massive' - and there are some Muslims who clearly claim to speak on behalf of all of the 'community's' grievances, to speak for the whole Umma.

To MBM: the idea that Britain is not guilty of any war crimes is being tested in court just now, as it happens. It seems evident that Allied soldiers have guilty of torturing and humiliating prisoners.

But the wider point IS the wholesale bombing of civilians. Because, let's be clear, this wasn't in the first instance a war, but a bombing. Fine words about not deliberately targeting civilians whilst engaging in a campaign that always was, has and will continue to result in the deaths of thousands of civilans are totally empty. We can only draw the same conclusion that the London bombers seemed to draw: that the leaders of Britain and the US deem Muslim lives to be worth much less than other lives. The number of civilians which die in Iraq EVERY DAY is comparable to the death toll of the London bombings. But where are the books of condolence for the Iraqi dead?

Blair's justification for the Iraq bombing was consequentialist: the means might be undesirable, but the ends, or consequences, would be good.

The justifiaction for the Iraq bombing becomes more threadbare by the day. The WMD pretext has now been abandoned; the claim that it would make the world safer is now exposed, not only as false, but as the complete opposite of the truth. It has turned Iraq into an unstable cilvil warzone and a hotbed of terrorist activity.

DigitalDjigit
20-07-2005, 03:35 PM
What about the possibility that it was a false flag campaign.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705teneasysteps.htm

I wonder how accurate some of those facts are. Anyone with concrete info please step up. I don't think this argument should be dismissed out of hand.

mms
20-07-2005, 09:51 PM
the sun seems to be carrying on the campaign against immigration tied in with the bombings regardless that these guys were engish born
in todays paper family members of the bombers were interviewed with red stamps next to the interviews stating the origins of their parents ie 'cairo' ' jamaica' etc . On another page their was an interview with the boxer from bolton who had just knocked the other guy out in the first round saying how he went on to land of hope and glory etc ..
made me feel a little sick really

komaba
20-07-2005, 11:10 PM
i'm missing bits of the argument. would the leeds bombers have been justified in targetting random muslims (as they in fact did) because muslims are killing muslims in iraq, or because muslims (were) oppressing muslims in afghanstian? i was against the war, but i don't think it was entirely unjust (like i'm in a court, outside the historical process...).


how much were these guys from leeds oppressed, exactly?and what was their legitimate grievance. as a citizen who was lied into war by blair, i too have a legitimate grievance against the government, but that doesn't provide anything like grounds for bombing people. 'coldly and rationally', why would muslims in leeds necessarily have common cause with muslims in iraq (who, in any case, were oppressed by saddam ffs!)? on the basis that they are muslims? then why murder muslims in london?


I imagine to the bombers 'who' was going to suffer was secondary to the damage their action would inflict on the capital city of their oppressor and the fear they would cause there. Also, of course, as they gave their own lives for the cause so the lives of any Muslims killed would be worth it - plus they might expect their righteous victims to go straight to heaven without passing go.

The national divisions of the present Muslim world were never meant to be and are a result of Western imposition. When Islam went all the way from the Atlantic to China there was free movement throughout the Muslim world, much as there was throughout the British Empire. It is still a dream among Muslims of the Muslim world to again be so united and that it isn't is seen as a result of Western imperialism. In all this, being Iraqi or British from Leeds is secondary to being a Muslim as all Muslims are 'brothers'.

I was using 'coldly and rationally' to describe how we should attempt to understand why 4 lads from Yorkshire might become bombers, not their reasoning. The rest of the difficulty you claim to have in understanding might be due to not seeing that Saddam and Iraq and Muslim on Muslim violence there is an internal Muslim problem in which Western imperialists are poking their noses into in an attempt to keep Muslims divided. At least, that's how I imagine they would see it.

Unlike you, I was not 'lied into war by Blair'. As soon as he (and Bush) started on the WMD line I knew it must be untrue. How could SH be a threat after loosing most of his army in the 1st Gulf War and after 10 years of sanctions with his radar installations being bombed out every time he turned them on? However, if you decided to see yourself as a human being 1st and a UK citizen 2nd you might identify with all the people killed in Iraq and decide that you had ample reason to try to blow up Downing Street. Personally, I think anything obtained through violence is neither worth having nor going to last for very long.

Lest I give the wrong impression, I think terrorists are well fucked up but then I think the same of Blair and Bush and anyone else who thinks it's okay to bomb the shit out of innocent people in particular, and solve problems with violence in general. All these wishy washy people who say that Afghanistan might be justified but not Iraq are out to lunch. If Osama bin Laden had been hiding in the East End of London and nobody there was willing to give him up I hardly think bombing the area would have been an option... why was it okay in Afghanistan?

johneffay
21-07-2005, 10:05 AM
I don't think this argument should be dismissed out of hand.

It's patently nonsense of the first order, predicated upn the idea that these people were so thick you could get them to do anything you wanted. Still, I guess if MI6 could murder Princess Diana...

MBM
21-07-2005, 10:50 AM
The national divisions of the present Muslim world were never meant to be and are a result of Western imposition.

OK - not strictly true. There have been wars between muslim states and there are multiple identities within the muslim world. What exactly are you trying to argue here?

henrymiller
21-07-2005, 11:05 AM
digitaldigit, you are a menk!

"4th Arab goes out partying in London night before and ends up getting out of bed late. No worries, the 9/11 'hijackers' did the same thing but that didn't cause us a big problem. 4th Arab catches bus to see if other Arabs are waiting for him. 4th Arab starts hearing about explosions in the London Underground. 4th Arab comes to the realization that this he is being set up and freaks out. 4th Arab starts fiddling in his rucksack. 4th Arab sets bomb off and is blown up."

yes. yes, that must be the answer! every person scanning the cctv is in on it! tin hats time!


The national divisions of the present Muslim world were never meant to be and are a result of Western imposition. When Islam went all the way from the Atlantic to China there was free movement throughout the Muslim world, much as there was throughout the British Empire. It is still a dream among Muslims of the Muslim world to again be so united and that it isn't is seen as a result of Western imperialism. In all this, being Iraqi or British from Leeds is secondary to being a Muslim as all Muslims are 'brothers'.

'meant to be' hmm? actually, this idea of the muslim brotherhood is pretty offensive.


All these wishy washy people who say that Afghanistan might be justified but not Iraq are out to lunch. If Osama bin Laden had been hiding in the East End of London and nobody there was willing to give him up I hardly think bombing the area would have been an option... why was it okay in Afghanistan?

uh, cos the taliban are that little bit nastier than george galloway.

hombre
21-07-2005, 12:18 PM
The national divisions of the present Muslim world were never meant to be and are a result of Western imposition.

OK - not strictly true. There have been wars between muslim states and there are multiple identities within the muslim world. What exactly are you trying to argue here?
it is a fact that the national divisions in the present muslims world (and not only there) are a result of the western imposition. quite a lot (in fact most) of internal conflicts in the muslim world (and not only there) were exacerbated and exploited by the actions of the west.

besides, do things in other parts of the world need to be "strictly true" in order to be taken seriously?



'meant to be' hmm? actually, this idea of the muslim brotherhood is pretty offensive.

why?



uh, cos the taliban are that little bit nastier than george galloway.
so, if someone is "nasty" you can lynch them or shoot them on spot? and again, was afghanistan conquered because the taliban were "nasty"?

komaba
21-07-2005, 12:37 PM
The national divisions of the present Muslim world were never meant to be and are a result of Western imposition.

OK - not strictly true. There have been wars between muslim states and there are multiple identities within the muslim world. What exactly are you trying to argue here?

That Islam was originally thought of as a unifying force that would make tribal and national divisions redundant and within the Islamic world all would be equal before Allah. And that Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait etc. were a result of Western imposition. Indonesia attained statehood after the Dutch left, Malaysia after the British left.

I'm also debunking your assertion that Muslims from Yorkshire have nothing to do with what happens to Muslims in Iraq.

And you Hen? What are you trying to argue here?

komaba
21-07-2005, 12:44 PM
'meant to be' hmm? actually, this idea of the muslim brotherhood is pretty offensive.

What do you mean? Offensive to who?


uh, cos the taliban are that little bit nastier than george galloway.[/QUOTE]

The Taliban didn't order or execute the events of 9/11. And anyway, you're just twisting things - I was talking about the killing of ordinary people in Afghanistan.

henrymiller
21-07-2005, 12:52 PM
i was being flip re galloway. the taliban, as backers and protectors of AQ were as culpable for 9/11 as the CIA was for the taliban, if you get me. a full-on war was pushing it but some kind of action against terrorist training camps was pretty easily justified. i think the notion that muslims in the west, at any rate (ie muslims i know) want a united caliphate or whatever, is menk; they certainly don't 'identify' with the 'resistance' in iraq even though they were against the war.


That Islam was originally thought of as a unifying force that would make tribal and national divisions redundant and within the Islamic world all would be equal before Allah. And that Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait etc. were a result of Western imposition. Indonesia attained statehood after the Dutch left, Malaysia after the British left.

I'm also debunking your assertion that Muslims from Yorkshire have nothing to do with what happens to Muslims in Iraq.

of course the state boundaries were the result of european 'imposition'; however, all boundaries are the result of war and conquest. nationalism itself is a product of modern european history. but you have to take on board that an ideology is not owned by its producers. nationalism has flourished among people it 'shouldn't have', ie the kurds.

if britain had supported the bosnian muslims in the balkan wars, would the 'christian brothers' of the serbs have been justified in bombing london? no.

DigitalDjigit
21-07-2005, 01:00 PM
digitaldigit, you are a menk!

"4th Arab goes out partying in London night before and ends up getting out of bed late. No worries, the 9/11 'hijackers' did the same thing but that didn't cause us a big problem. 4th Arab catches bus to see if other Arabs are waiting for him. 4th Arab starts hearing about explosions in the London Underground. 4th Arab comes to the realization that this he is being set up and freaks out. 4th Arab starts fiddling in his rucksack. 4th Arab sets bomb off and is blown up."

yes. yes, that must be the answer! every person scanning the cctv is in on it! tin hats time!

I did not write that. I don't even agree with all the stuff on the website because it does seems they are stretching it. But that's just one version. I am saying that it is possible that it was organised by the government. I mean you have trouble convincing people in the Middle East to be suicide bombers (for example the Palestinians didn't start doing it well into the Israeli occupation). So why would some Brittons who have no personal grievances do it? And some of the facts they point out (such as the exercise thing...is that true or not) lend some weight to this theory. It is not like governments never do this. The Russian government was caught red-handed planting explosives in Moscow apartment buildings to blame it on the Chechens.

MBM
22-07-2005, 01:05 AM
<i>it is a fact that the national divisions in the present muslims world (and not only there) are a result of the western imposition. quite a lot (in fact most) of internal conflicts in the muslim world (and not only there) were exacerbated and exploited by the actions of the west.</i>

As has been noted, the nation state is largely a European invention.

I would agree that European imperialism has made a major impact on the make-up of the Arab world.

However, once Islam left the Arab peninsula, there has been regular conflict between different Islamic groups - be they ethnic (Arab, Turk, Persian, Mongol) or religious (Shia vs Sunni).

<i>That Islam was originally thought of as a unifying force that would make tribal and national divisions redundant and within the Islamic world all would be equal before Allah. And that Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait etc. were a result of Western imposition. Indonesia attained statehood after the Dutch left, Malaysia after the British left.</i>

Well, in theory. Just like Christianity was supposed to be a unifying force in Europe. Although that didn't stop Christians killing each other in large numbers. Islam has a slightly better record than that.

The concept of the global Muslim brotherhood has been a potent force in Islam, it has never negated politics.

Malaysia is a case in point. There were frequent conflicts between the pre-British Islamic states. A constant shifting of alliances and power - which was one of things that aided the British colonial effort.

<i>besides, do things in other parts of the world need to be "strictly true" in order to be taken seriously?</i>

No, but it does help if they aren't rubbish.

komaba
22-07-2005, 03:18 AM
actually, this idea of the muslim brotherhood is pretty offensive.

I'm still wondering what you meant by this. Offensive how and to whom?

On another topic, you keep taking speculative comments about how the bombers might have felt or thought about what they were doing, and applying them to all Muslims. You also seem to be taking speculation about their motives as an attempt to justify them.

While I still don't know what you meant by your comment above, part of the doctrine of these terrorists is that there was a Golden Islamic Age when all Muslims were united, that Muslim unity was destroyed by Western expansionism and materialism, that the West is still out to destroy Islam. That they think these things doesn't make them true and talking about them doesn't mean that others thing they are right or that their methods in fighting their 'war against the Infidels' is justified.

komaba
22-07-2005, 03:31 AM
i was being flip re galloway. the taliban, as backers and protectors of AQ were as culpable for 9/11 as the CIA was for the taliban, if you get me. a full-on war was pushing it but some kind of action against terrorist training camps was pretty easily justified. i think the notion that muslims in the west, at any rate (ie muslims i know) want a united caliphate or whatever, is menk; they certainly don't 'identify' with the 'resistance' in iraq even though they were against the war.

Again, you ignore the point of my post... I'm not talking about the Taliban. I'm saying that whatever the Taliban were responsible for, it's not okay to kill thousands of innocent civilians. This is a point you have so far failed to address.

Yes, I agree that taking military action against the camps where the 9/11 bombers were trained or from where they were controlled, for their mission would be a reasonable reaction and to be expected. However, by your measure, the CIA being responsible for the Taliban would make it okay for the US to bomb the fuck out Langley.

And again, you twist what is being said. I haven't said that Muslims in general want a united caliphate or that they all identify with the resistance in Iraq... YOU are saying that. I'm saying that the bombers might have wanted that and supported it.

komaba
22-07-2005, 03:41 AM
if britain had supported the bosnian muslims in the balkan wars, would the 'christian brothers' of the serbs have been justified in bombing london? no.

I can see that you have an agenda but it's very hard to tell exactly what it is with the way you keep throwing up all these irrelevancies and non-sequiturs.

Nobody here is suggesting that the bombers were justified in hitting London. Of course they weren't. But that the bombers thought so is self-evident. I think you might be better off on an Islamist site, where you could argue your corner with those who DO try to justifiy the bombings.

henrymiller
22-07-2005, 09:18 AM
you keep taking speculative comments about how the bombers might have felt or thought about what they were doing, and applying them to all Muslims. You also seem to be taking speculation about their motives as an attempt to justify them.

the second point is interesting--i can't quite resolve it in my head. but as to the first, you are totally wrong. here is something YOU said:


The national divisions of the present Muslim world were never meant to be and are a result of Western imposition. When Islam went all the way from the Atlantic to China there was free movement throughout the Muslim world, much as there was throughout the British Empire. It is still a dream among Muslims of the Muslim world to again be so united and that it isn't is seen as a result of Western imperialism. In all this, being Iraqi or British from Leeds is secondary to being a Muslim as all Muslims are 'brothers'.

what i am saying is precisely that you CAN'T generalise these (ascribed) motives or feelings to muslims in the west at large, ie in leeds. only among fundamentalists crazies does this (entirely fictional) 'brotherhood' exist. what of the 'brother' kurds? what of the 'brother' londoners killed two weeks ago? IOW i don't buy these ascribed motives; they are at once too rational to be ascribed to suicide bombers, and too irrational to be taken seriously.

k-punk
22-07-2005, 09:55 AM
It's patently nonsense of the first order, predicated upn the idea that these people were so thick you could get them to do anything you wanted. Still, I guess if MI6 could murder Princess Diana...

Thing is though that exercise (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm) did take place.... What does it mean?

k-punk
22-07-2005, 10:02 AM
i was being flip re galloway. the taliban, as backers and protectors of AQ were as culpable for 9/11 as the CIA was for the taliban, if you get me. a full-on war was pushing it but some kind of action against terrorist training camps was pretty easily justified.

OK, so by this logic, surely the USA - which, as you admit backed the Taliban - should also have bombed itself?



i think the notion that muslims in the west, at any rate (ie muslims i know) want a united caliphate or whatever, is menk; they certainly don't 'identify' with the 'resistance' in iraq even though they were against the war.


Yes, but it's just possible the thinking of 'Muslims you know' does not necessarily equate with that of every single Muslim, everywhere.

k-punk
22-07-2005, 10:07 AM
what i am saying is precisely that you CAN'T generalise these (ascribed) motives or feelings to muslims in the west at large, ie in leeds.

You can quite clearly ascribe them to SOME people in Leeds, i.e. Muhammad Sadique Khan, Shezhad Tanweer etc.


only among fundamentalists crazies does this (entirely fictional) 'brotherhood' exist.

Surely if there are such things as 'fundamentalist crazies' then they would include the Leeds bombers?



what of the 'brother' kurds? what of the 'brother' londoners killed two weeks ago? IOW i don't buy these ascribed motives; they are at once too rational to be ascribed to suicide bombers, and too irrational to be taken seriously.


But obviously the suicide bombers have a rationale: they don't just act 'crazily', they have reasons and motives.

henrymiller
22-07-2005, 11:26 AM
me: what i am saying is precisely that you CAN'T generalise these (ascribed) motives or feelings to muslims in the west at large, ie in leeds.

k-punkYou can quite clearly ascribe them to SOME people in Leeds, i.e. Muhammad Sadique Khan, Shezhad Tanweer etc.

yeah -- exactly: you can't generalize *from* the leeds bombers to other muslims in the west (or indeed in the muslim world -- the kurds being my convenient example). i have gone too far in the opposite direction, and indeed i must be doing something wrong, in that i agree with today's polly toynbee article!


OK, so by this logic, surely the USA - which, as you admit backed the Taliban - should also have bombed itself?

yes. the morality of the entire afghanistan episode in the cold war is too depressing to contemplate. basically, a terrible invasion by a terrible dictatorship matched by an nightmarish islamic theocracy backed by christian fundamentalists. there are many wrongs and few rights. but the people who provided a home for AQ were still fair targets after 9/11. this is inconsistent, but i can't see any other answer. the whole history of us foreign policy is having to burn former friends when they go off the reservation.

hint
22-07-2005, 01:10 PM
Thing is though that exercise (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm) did take place.... What does it mean?


How many of these kinds of exercises take place each year?

I'd imagine that the more you look into it, the more it would seem possible that it's a coincidence that a real attack could take place while such an exercise was underway.

Wasn't some of the 9/11 footage shot by a fire crew doing some kind of training exercise nearby?

DigitalDjigit
22-07-2005, 01:44 PM
How many of these kinds of exercises take place each year?

I'd imagine that the more you look into it, the more it would seem possible that it's a coincidence that a real attack could take place while such an exercise was underway.

Wasn't some of the 9/11 footage shot by a fire crew doing some kind of training exercise nearby?

I did a google search for "homeland security exercise schedule" and you can see that for any given location they happen maybe three times a year at most. Now, this is different because this was a private company. Still, the timing and location being the same is really quite a coincidence.

henrymiller
22-07-2005, 01:52 PM
i will admit that if true it's extraordinary and obviously brings up big questions. i don't much belive it, i must say. a lot of police would have had to have been in on it, it wasn't clear, while the attacks were happening, that they were at three stations -- during the bombings and well into the afternoon about 8 stations were directly affected, so they guy saying it was eerie because it was happening where they were doesn't quite scan. but there might be something there.
i don't know how the government or the security services benefit. but i am prepared to belive that mi5 is as entangled with their islamist opponents as they were with the ira. all those spy movies about the murkiness of allegiances in espionage aren't plucked out of the ether -- spying is like that.

komaba
22-07-2005, 04:31 PM
what i am saying is precisely that you CAN'T generalise these (ascribed) motives or feelings to muslims in the west at large, ie in leeds. only among fundamentalists crazies does this (entirely fictional) 'brotherhood' exist. what of the 'brother' kurds? what of the 'brother' londoners killed two weeks ago? IOW i don't buy these ascribed motives; they are at once too rational to be ascribed to suicide bombers, and too irrational to be taken seriously.

I'm not inventing this stuff... if you care to read up on Islam you will find that historically and presently Muslims regard themselves as one community regardless of background or nationality - they refer to all Muslims as forming the Ummah, or community. Sure, this is an idealised view of Islam but one that Muslims, by virtue of being Muslims, ascribe to. The reality, of course, is that Muslims are as split into different groups, as you say, as much as anyone.

Another basic belief of Muslims is in jihad, or struggle, whether inner, or outer as in the promulgation of Islam, but for most Muslims this is tempered by the proscription against violence. The bombers, of course, think violence is fine. Sure, the terrorists are going nowhere fast and their claim to be fighting for Islam is patently false but that doesn't mean they aren't sincere in their beliefs. Part of the problem as I see it is that what these people believe are very extreme versions of what millions of peaceable Muslims believe so it's difficult to deal with them without antagonising borderline Muslims and pushing them over into extremism.

It isn't useful to dismiss the bombers as crazies - taking that view leads absolutely nowhere. Like Blair dismissing them as evil. Dangerous, extremist, misled, fucked up, criminal, warped if you want but from accounts of the people who knew them they were otherwise normal and surprised everyone by what they ended up doing. The problem for the rest of us is to find out how these people get to be how they are and tackle that. Or as Sun Tzu said, 'Know your enemy' - as good advice now as it was 2600 years ago. Part of the problem, IMO, is that too many people in Islam, people running schools and mosques in Pakistan, even in Yorkshire where I've read that immans are often brought in from rural Pakistan, have no idea of the wider world and yet are given responsibility for the religious education of children. An Afghani friend remarked the other day that he thought religious teachers should be schooled in science and world history before being allowed to teach in a madrass. That seems like a good idea to me.

FWIW, my personal view is that anyone who believes in God either knows something I don't (which I think very unlikely) or is wilfully suspending disbelief. But then I regard anyone who thinks they've 'found the answer' with great suspicion, whether politically, philisophically, musically or anythingically.

ambrose
22-07-2005, 07:45 PM
off topic, sorry, just to point out that this assertion is patently untenable:

"The Russian government was caught red-handed planting explosives in Moscow apartment buildings to blame it on the Chechens."

this has been alleged but of all places russia is the least likely for hard "facts" of this nature to be verified. what is yr source, how were they "red handed".
not saying it isnt possible, but to make such a strident assertion is idiotic.

i know im a bit slow of the mark, but it seems as though henry miller is having problems with the idea of a group of people self identifying beyond the national boundary - britain comes first, then other defining elements. to point out that people might identify on a different axis, yes even to bomb fellow brits, is not to argue that all members of that group feel that way.

to hold religion as a greater bond between groups of people than their nationality is not the mark of "fundamentalist crazies". neither is this an irrational response. to ascribe such a feeling to a group of people is not necessarily insulting.

DigitalDjigit
22-07-2005, 07:56 PM
off topic, sorry, just to point out that this assertion is patently untenable:

"The Russian government was caught red-handed planting explosives in Moscow apartment buildings to blame it on the Chechens."

this has been alleged but of all places russia is the least likely for hard "facts" of this nature to be verified. what is yr source, how were they "red handed".
not saying it isnt possible, but to make such a strident assertion is idiotic.


It's been a while since I read about it but this: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/chec-m15.shtml
gives a brief overview. If I recall correctly there was also intimidation and silencing of Russian journalists attempting to investigate.

If you are willing to believe a shady group (Al Qaeda) can plot to blow up stuff in your country for their own purposes why is it such a stretch to believe than an equally shady organization (your intelligence agency of choice)with a bigger budget and a history of blowing up stuff all over the world won't do it in your country for their purposes.

k-punk
22-07-2005, 09:27 PM
How many of these kinds of exercises take place each year?

I'd imagine that the more you look into it, the more it would seem possible that it's a coincidence that a real attack could take place while such an exercise was underway.

What THOSE three stations on THAT very day? How low are the odds on that?

k-punk
22-07-2005, 10:59 PM
Meanwhile: the voice of reason (http://www.express.co.uk/pixfeed/express.gif) speaks...

ambrose
23-07-2005, 12:30 AM
im not saying i dont believe it could happen, im saying that believing anything that local police officers, kagarlitsky, or the FSB, and producing such a bald claim is rash in the extreme. Observer "exclusive" or no. Russia is only realsitically spoken about in "maybe"s and "possibly"s, and once you start beliveing the hype of one side or the other, whether it be putin or berezovsky, you wander further and further away from anything resembling the truth. our obsession with "fact" and "evidence" obscures the vagaries inherent in such a situation.

Pearsall
23-07-2005, 06:25 AM
sorry, wandering back to a point made on the previous page, but where does this idea that the CIA created the Taliban come from?

the Taliban were a creation of Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency. after the Soviets were driven out the US mostly withdrew from Afghanistan as the country fell into civil war (and one of the misconceptions of the jihad against the Soviets was that it was directed by the CIA; in actual fact the CIA provided weapons, money, and logistics info, but the bulk of the task of distributing weapons and organizing and training the various mujahedin militias was subcontracted to the ISI, Robert D. Kaplan's Soldiers of God is a good book on the Afghan War in the 1980's). The Pakistanis wanted to calm shit down in Afghanistan so that in case of any serious confrontation with India they could use Afghanistan for strategic depth. So, under the ISI director-general Hamid Gul (google him) they trained and armed the Taliban and sent them off to kick some ass. the CIA and the US stayed pretty hands off for a long time (although by the late 90's they were starting to put out feelers to see if the Taliban would agree to the building of a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Karachi).

sorry, it had to be said.

johneffay
23-07-2005, 07:54 AM
Thing is though that exercise (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm) did take place.... What does it mean?

Synchronicity obviously :p

Have you looked at Visor's website. They're a company specialising in crisis management. If they're a successful one, they're probably running these exercises every day of the week.

johneffay
23-07-2005, 08:14 AM
What THOSE three stations on THAT very day? How low are the odds on that?

If you listen to it carefully, you'll see that isn't what he says. He says he was running an exercise involving those stations. He might well have been considering every staion in central London.

Also. the conspiracy theorists are going on about him having a thousand people in the stations and that was how the bandages arrived so fast. Once gain, all he actually says is that he was having a meeting in an office with the crisis managers of a company with a staff of over a thousand.

What are the odds on a man whose job is advising on crisis management having a chat with some people about terrorist attacks in London on a Friday morning? Probably about the same as you discussing the Ontological argument with a bunch of teenagers ;)

DigitalDjigit
23-07-2005, 12:41 PM
and this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1533917,00.html

mms
23-07-2005, 06:34 PM
and this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1533917,00.html

yeah police enforce the law not make it ,so that's that i hope.
that bloke from yesterday that got shot had nothing to do with the incidents .
oops.

owen
23-07-2005, 06:52 PM
it's remarkable how little information the police have given out over the last couple of days- so many odd inconsistencies, like whether these phantom bombs a couple of days ago were supposed to go off, whether or not there was smoke coming out of a train at stockwell yesterday, and not to mention why they shot this poor fucker (and why they apparently had him under surveillance?)--it's all incredibly sinister

MBM
25-07-2005, 02:19 AM
Economist article (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4198626) on links between different Muslim groups in the UK.

Omaar
25-07-2005, 09:07 AM
"Openly discussing the shift in police tactics for the first time, Sir Ian defended the policy of "shoot to kill in order to protect", saying it was necessary to shoot suspects in the head if it was feared they might trigger devices on their body.

..... What we have got to recognise is that people are taking incredibly fast-moving decisions in life threatening situations. There is no point in shooting in someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be. There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it. The only way to deal with this is to shoot to the head."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535605,00.html

Is this not a slightly disturbing development? Surely not justified ....

henrymiller
25-07-2005, 10:34 AM
i know im a bit slow of the mark, but it seems as though henry miller is having problems with the idea of a group of people self identifying beyond the national boundary - britain comes first, then other defining elements. to point out that people might identify on a different axis, yes even to bomb fellow brits, is not to argue that all members of that group feel that way.

1) no, i don't have a problem with that; my argument was just that this state only obtained among the devout, and that only a real fundamentalist would take it this far.

2) it clearly *is* irrational insofar as religious belief is irrational, and because the idea of a muslim brotherhood is objectively a lie. perhaps it might be brought about; perhaps it exists in theory or in kernel, but all muslims are not at peace. identifying with the iraqi 'resistance' means not identifying with their muslim victims or the kurds, ie the notion of brotherhood is ideological in the extreme.

DJL
25-07-2005, 11:40 AM
Regarding the claims on prisonplanet.com and www.infowars.com - both are long running sites helmed by Alex Jones who seems to have a nasty habit of getting things right unfortunately. Admittedly he and his crew can be a bit over the top sometimes but he has some important things to say. Interestingly Alex Jones is also part of Sacred Cow Productions which is run by Bill Hick's lifelong friend Kevin Booth.

Until recently I have been working as a driver for a hire car company and as a result got to listen to lots of radio. I had the fortune of actually hearing the interview on Radio 2 on the 7/7 with the guy who was running the exercises involving all three targetted underground stations. He seemed as equally flabbergasted as the presenter over this uncanny coincidence. Since then he has also remained strangely quiet over the whole issue. The four asian lads who's backgrounds do not fit the profile of suicidal mass murderers could quite conceivably of been involved in this training exercise. The fact they all had ID on them begins to make sense under this assertion. The military grade explosive used (apparently no longer the case due to complete u-turn by the media) also fits with this possible line of thought. All it would take is someone with a remote detonator to explode the rucksacks carried unwittingly by these volunteers for the result on 7/7 to occur. If anything had gone wrong it could be explained away by the training exercise going on that morning.

The government with the support of the Murdoch media empire now have carte blanche to impose the biometric identity card scheme and further fascist legislation concerning freedom of movement and thought which is essential to them controlling the population and thus maintaining their own positions and those of people above them.

Before the history books get changed remember the Reichstag fire perpetrated by its occupants and blamed on a false threat in order to further the fear, motive and enthusiasm of the German population to engage in a World War!

These times are fucked. George Orwell was spot on. I find those unwilling to even acknowledge the above theories as a possibility are generally scared by what it would mean if they happen to be true. It means that a lot of what you believe in is in fact a lie which is something not easily accepted from my own experience... Nobody likes to feel they are not in control and if the above has any strand of truth in it then we are a mile away from our believed ideals of democracy.

henrymiller
25-07-2005, 11:51 AM
Before the history books get changed remember the Reichstag fire perpetrated by its occupants and blamed on a false threat in order to further the fear, motive and enthusiasm of the German population to engage in a World War!

this isn't strictly accurate! iirc the nazis done it in the run-up to the 1933 elections, and blamed the communists (not exactly a false threat, subjectively). so it wasn't done by its occupants (it was done by *some of* its occupants) and it wasn't done to get the german population behind a 'world war'.

but if you're as right about the 7/7 bombings as you are about a well-documented historical episode, yikes!

what else has alex jones got right?

DJL
25-07-2005, 12:35 PM
this isn't strictly accurate! iirc the nazis done it in the run-up to the 1933 elections, and blamed the communists (not exactly a false threat, subjectively). so it wasn't done by its occupants (it was done by *some of* its occupants) and it wasn't done to get the german population behind a 'world war'.

but if you're as right about the 7/7 bombings as you are about a well-documented historical episode, yikes!

what else has alex jones got right?

Lol, I don't claim to be right with regard to what I've said - simply that is a a feasible alternative explanation.

My history is really terrible I admit so I submit to your details above regarding the Reichstag building fire.
What was the reason for the fire if it wasn't to get the population behind military action?

DigitalDjigit
25-07-2005, 12:45 PM
More good stuff:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/index.html

Notice how this was a response to London terror.

johneffay
25-07-2005, 02:21 PM
I had the fortune of actually hearing the interview on Radio 2 on the 7/7 with the guy who was running the exercises involving all three targetted underground stations. He seemed as equally flabbergasted as the presenter over this uncanny coincidence. Since then he has also remained strangely quiet over the whole issue.
No he hasn't. He simply made a throwaway comment on a radio station which conspiracy theorists have twisted out of all proportion. Think about it rationally: Either he was involved in the 'conspiracy', in which case he wouldn't have made the comment, or he he didn't think there was one. The guy does freelance security work for the government, do you really think that he'd jeopardize that by blurting out the secrets of the New World Order (or whatever) in the media?


The four asian lads who's backgrounds do not fit the profile of suicidal mass murderers could quite conceivably of been involved in this training exercise.
As I said earlier, nowhere does the bloke from Visor claim that he had people on the ground. Look at their website (http://www.visorconsultants.com/) and see what it actually is they do for a living rather than just taking on board the unconsidered assertions of a bunch of paranoids who take this sort of bullshit (http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/numerology_intel_op.htm) seriously.


These times are fucked. George Orwell was spot on. I find those unwilling to even acknowledge the above theories as a possibility are generally scared by what it would mean if they happen to be true. It means that a lot of what you believe in is in fact a lie which is something not easily accepted from my own experience... Nobody likes to feel they are not in control and if the above has any strand of truth in it then we are a mile away from our believed ideals of democracy.
I agree that the times are indeed fucked when we have security death squads roaming the London Underground. However that doesn't mean that we should acknowledge material that is plainly lunacy as a possibility. Assess it by all means, but then discard.

After all, if the entire thing was a plot by the Masonic Lizards who really control everything in order to scare the shit out of people and so justify tightening their grip, why would they need to use more than one suicide bomber to achieve the task. Oh, hang on though, it was probably really a form of mass sacrifice in order to raise Dread Cthulhu from R'lyeh. They obviously didn't mange to kill enough though, so we can look forward to another atrocity on a numerologically significant date any time now ;)

DJL
25-07-2005, 02:57 PM
No he hasn't. He simply made a throwaway comment on a radio station which conspiracy theorists have twisted out of all proportion. Think about it rationally: Either he was involved in the 'conspiracy', in which case he wouldn't have made the comment, or he he didn't think there was one. The guy does freelance security work for the government, do you really think that he'd jeopardize that by blurting out the secrets of the New World Order (or whatever) in the media?

In reality all he did was tell the facts as he saw them ie. they were conducting an exercise for the possibility of bombs being exploded on the underground that involved those three stations. When it actually happened I would of been as surprised as he was and contacting one of the main radio stations to explain details of this pretty amazing coincidence isn't an unreasonable action. I can't quite remember wether he had rang in or was actually at the studio (the latter I think but not sure).


As I said earlier, nowhere does the bloke from Visor claim that he had people on the ground. Look at their website (http://www.visorconsultants.com/) and see what it actually is they do for a living rather than just taking on board the unconsidered assertions of a bunch of paranoids who take this sort of bullshit (http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/numerology_intel_op.htm) seriously.

Like I said they can go over the top sometimes much like Icke and his lizards but that it not to say there aren't elements of truth amongst these fantasies which are incredibly inciteful. The mad people are mad for a reason.



I agree that the times are indeed fucked when we have security death squads roaming the London Underground. However that doesn't mean that we should acknowledge material that is plainly lunacy as a possibility. Assess it by all means, but then discard.

After all, if the entire thing was a plot by the Masonic Lizards who really control everything in order to scare the shit out of people and so justify tightening their grip, why would they need to use more than one suicide bomber to achieve the task. Oh, hang on though, it was probably really a form of mass sacrifice in order to raise Dread Cthulhu from R'lyeh. They obviously didn't mange to kill enough though, so we can look forward to another atrocity on a numerologically significant date any time now ;)

Sometime the supposed lunatics aren't lunatics at all and the general masses are the ones who have been led down a fantastical path. At the end of the day you have to make your own mind up on these things but its better to hear all points of view imo.

johneffay
25-07-2005, 03:18 PM
In reality all he did was tell the facts as he saw them ie. they were conducting an exercise for the possibility of bombs being exploded on the underground that involved those three stations. When it actually happened I would of been as surprised as he was and contacting one of the main radio stations to explain details of this pretty amazing coincidence isn't an unreasonable action. I can't quite remember wether he had rang in or was actually at the studio (the latter I think but not sure).
In the studio. He didn't contact them; they contacted him. He's one of these rent-an-experts the BBC always drags in when something like this happens. As I said in a previous post, he says he was conducting an exercise 'based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning'. Note that what he doesn't say is that the exercise was based solely on those stations. It was just a throway comment by a guy the BBC dragged in to talk about what could be done to prevent attacks.


At the end of the day you have to make your own mind up on these things but its better to hear all points of view imo.
Very true, but some are worth spending more time on than others. There is no doubt that this and other governments are using terrorist attacks to do some appalling things both on a local and international scale, but it's a hell of a leap from there to the claim that they are orchestrating such attacks as part of some global conspiracy.

DJL
25-07-2005, 03:44 PM
In the studio. He didn't contact them; they contacted him. He's one of these rent-an-experts the BBC always drags in when something like this happens. As I said in a previous post, he says he was conducting an exercise 'based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning'. Note that what he doesn't say is that the exercise was based solely on those stations. It was just a throway comment by a guy the BBC dragged in to talk about what could be done to prevent attacks.


Very true, but some are worth spending more time on than others. There is no doubt that this and other governments are using terrorist attacks to do some appalling things both on a local and international scale, but it's a hell of a leap from there to the claim that they are orchestrating such attacks as part of some global conspiracy.

I get what you are saying - it sounds mental but, using my logic and reason and everything I have read or heard about it, I don't find it implausible. Society to me seems pyramid based and I don't think that government is at, or entirely at, the top which makes me wonder who is?

Maybe I'm completely wrong and it was asian kids from leeds blowing themselves up on the underground in the name of Islam. There have been so many inconsistences in the news that really you would just be taking somebody's else's word for it just as you would if you took mine. So, like I said it's really a case of people making their own minds up.

johneffay
25-07-2005, 03:58 PM
I get what you are saying - it sounds mental but, using my logic and reason and everything I have read or heard about it, I don't find it implausible. Society to me seems pyramid based and I don't think that government is at, or entirely at, the top which makes me wonder who is?

I think your pyramid doesn't work as well as you think. Basically, most of the people who claim to be in control don't have as much power as they would like you to believe. Half these departments are at ecah other's throats anyway and that's before you include international factors and the power of the market. I don't think anyone's really in charge, they all just react to events.


There have been so many inconsistences in the news
Absolutely but that can mostly be explained by the fact that that most, if not all, news outlets
a. Twist stories to fit their own agenda.
b. Report things when they don't know what's going on.

I'm probably more cynical than you, in that I think that most of the stuff that feeds conspiracy theories can be put down to incompetence rather than Machiavellian Princes.

DJL
25-07-2005, 04:10 PM
I'm probably more cynical than you, in that I think that most of the stuff that feeds conspiracy theories can be put down to incompetence rather than Machiavellian Princes.

Incompetence plays a major part in what is going on.

The people I'm interested in are corporate barons, strong royal lines with long and interesting histories, Rupert Murdoch and similar, past presidents, military/industrialists, large land owners etc... Basically all unelected advisors to our government at the peak of society in terms of worth and influence.

mms
25-07-2005, 09:08 PM
The people I'm interested in are corporate barons, strong royal lines with long and interesting histories, Rupert Murdoch and similar, past presidents, military/industrialists, large land owners etc... Basically all unelected advisors to our government at the peak of society in terms of worth and influence.

or this is what they want you to think. :cool:

DJL
26-07-2005, 08:00 AM
or this is what they want you to think. :cool:

Lol

hint
26-07-2005, 08:40 AM
What THOSE three stations on THAT very day? How low are the odds on that?

As hard as it may be to believe sometimes, some people are actually good at doing their jobs. So, yes - I believe it to be well within the realms of possibility that an experienced security firm might be able to pick likely targets for this kind of attack and, more importantly, be right.

henrymiller
26-07-2005, 09:31 AM
what time did this guy go on the radio? did he say 3 stations or more? until about 3pm, many more than 3 stations were thought to be involved, so if he went on air in the morning, he can't have said 'exactly these 3 stations'.

johneffay
26-07-2005, 09:56 AM
what time did this guy go on the radio? did he say 3 stations or more? until about 3pm, many more than 3 stations were thought to be involved, so if he went on air in the morning, he can't have said 'exactly these 3 stations'.

In the evening. As I said, he doesn't say three stations; he's ambiguous about the number of stations. You can listen to it here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm). There is also a clip of him on Channel Four News doing the rounds, but it doesn't add anything to his earlier comments.

Omaar
27-07-2005, 04:56 AM
According to Jones' transcript, and the audio on the page, power states:

"At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."

He doesn't mention the number of stations, it could be only 2 from this statement.

He later modified this original statement to claim that:

"It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events."

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705newdevelopments.htm

I watched part of an Alex Jones video once, it was incredibly poorly produced and the guy is obviously a bit of a twit, but this still seems a bit strange to me, especially considering a very similar thing happened before 9/11.

dominic
30-07-2005, 08:43 PM
this article in ny times kinda chimes with k-punk's take

here's the link = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/international/europe/31leeds.html?hp&ex=1122782400&en=741a930333cc1b70&ei=5094&partner=homepage

henrymiller
01-08-2005, 09:41 AM
Mr. Khan, Mr. Tanweer and Mr. Hussain were part of a larger clique of young British-raised South Asian men in Beeston, a neighborhood of Leeds, who turned their backs on what they came to see as a decadent, demoralizing Western culture.

really? mercedes-driving, cricket-playing guys by most accounts. question: is 'british-raised South Asian' a good description? NYT says britain hasn't evolved towards hyphenates like 'african-american'. but how useful or indeed accurate is 'african-american'? it too has problems.


In many ways, the transformation [to Islam] has had positive elements: the men live healthier and more constructive lives than many of their peers here, Asian or white, who have fallen prey to drugs, alcohol or petty crime.

woah. never forget america banned alcohol in the last century.


Many here see answers in the sense of injustice at events both at home and abroad that is far more widespread among Muslims than many Westerners recognize

again, these bombers were 'Westerners'. and those million 15 feb marchers felt a deep sense of injustice.

basically, there is nothing 'structural' about these psychologistic attempts to explain the 'motivation' of the bombers. the bombers themselves were marks. you will never explain the attacks in terms of subjective motivation. it's very un-k-punk really.

dominic
01-08-2005, 02:47 PM
i wasn't suggesting that the ny times undertook a "structural" analysis of the mindset of the bombers

merely said that the findings of the article were consistent w/ k-punk's take

dominic
01-08-2005, 02:59 PM
but how useful or indeed accurate is 'african-american'? it too has problems.

what term would you suggest?

and despite the injustice and oppression that african-americans have faced and continue to face, they see themselves as "belonging" to american society in ways that SE asians don't see themselves as belonging to britain

save for the black panthers in the late 60s/early 70s, african americans have been markedly non-violent in their organized actions

and black violence, in its discrete instances, is for the most directed against other blacks, not whites or the upper classes


woah. never forget america banned alcohol in the last century.

the NYT remark reflects the prevailing american ideology of "health" and "adjustment" to demands of the capitalist economy -- i.e., be productive, make a contribution, etc

however, your response is a bit overblown = "never forget america banned alcohol"

in fact for k-punk these people replaced one mode of self-destruction (drugs, alcohol, hedonism) with another mode of self-destruction (suicide attacks)


again, these bombers were 'Westerners'

i think their position is more ambiguous -- they're neither the one (se asian muslims) or the other (post-religious westerners)


and those million 15 feb marchers felt a deep sense of injustice

yes, this is the point that BOTH k-punk and the ny times article make -- which is why i said the two "chimed," not that the structure of the analyses was the same

henrymiller
09-08-2005, 03:31 PM
i'm not sure why you keep saying 'SE asians'. the families of 3 of the 4 came from pakistan, the 4th from africa (or w. indies? can't remember). the 21/7 bombers mostly from africa.


and despite the injustice and oppression that african-americans have faced and continue to face, they see themselves as "belonging" to american society in ways that SE asians don't see themselves as belonging to britain

yes, but the historical circumstances are very different. many americans, white and black, identify along 'ethnic' lines you won't find in britain. and of course the process of post-colonial immigration into britain has an entirely different history than the history of black america. the injustice is different in both cases; historically the oppression in america was far worse.


for k-punk these people replaced one mode of self-destruction (drugs, alcohol, hedonism) with another mode of self-destruction (suicide attacks)

well, i suppose that all depends on whether you think drink and drugs = hedonism, and whether pleasure-seeking = self-destruction. i'm no puritan, so i don't recognize this in my own use of alcohol. of course i *have* used it self-destructively, but that's my bidnizz.

k-punk is now saying something else, that in it's not cultural repulsion but the presence of western troops in the mid-east that is sole explanation. whatever. the explanation 'western society is decadent on booze and drugs' is shared by norman tebbit. minoritarian religious cults which justify mass murder worry me more than drug-addled youth.

k-punk
09-08-2005, 05:16 PM
k-punk is now saying something else, that in it's not cultural repulsion but the presence of western troops in the mid-east that is sole explanation. whatever.

'Sole' explanation? I think not. _Some_ explanation; well, yes...

In any case why would cultural repulsion be _opposed_ to a horror of the Western occupation of the middle-East?


the explanation 'western society is decadent on booze and drugs' is shared by norman tebbit.

Many views are shared by these two groups... doesn't mean they are wrong though (this is a version of what I call the Daily Mail fallacy, i.e. if the Daily Mail says it, it must be wrong, so if, for instance, the DM castigate Tracy Emin she must be a great artist)


minoritarian religious cults which justify mass murder worry me more than drug-addled youth.

Yes, but it would be nice not to have to put up with either - and drugs obviously cause FAR more death and destruction that al Qaeda could ever hope to.

dominic
09-08-2005, 05:48 PM
i'm not sure why you keep saying 'SE asians'.

i meant "south asians," but said "se asians" -- i of course realize that se asia is thailand/vietnam/laos, but for whatever reason that's what i typed


well, i suppose that all depends on whether you think drink and drugs = hedonism, and whether pleasure-seeking = self-destruction. i'm no puritan, so i don't recognize this in my own use of alcohol. of course i *have* used it self-destructively, but that's my bidnizz.

i'm not sure what my position is on this question -- let's say my position here is contradictory, incoherent, inarticulate, indefensible, etc -- i.e., i see myself as pretty committed to party culture, it's the one thing i believe in to the extent that i believe in anything (more than money, more than justice, more than education, more than wisdom or its pursuit, more than family or -- at least to this point in my life -- love) -- and yet i certainly wouldn't dismiss k-punk's criticisms of late capitalist hedonism, or leo strauss's criticisms, or any other serious criticisms

craner
03-04-2016, 08:27 PM
This was another good thread I inexplicably failed to comment on at the time, when I would have expected to be full-throated. I haven't re-read it in detail yet, but was interested by Matt's opening salvo, and how we would respond ten years on when, to say the least, this issue hasn't gone away.

craner
03-04-2016, 08:31 PM
World War 4, innit:

https://kirkpatrickmission.wordpress.com/2004/10/28/world-war-four/

luka
03-04-2016, 10:09 PM
interesting to see k punk sold on that alex jones/prison planet article