PDA

View Full Version : Waning Tolerance?



Woebot
31-07-2005, 09:39 PM
A big Graffito has (at last thankfully) replaced Banksy's wretched Pulp Fiction image beside Old Street Roundabout:

http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/banksy_travolta.jpg

It says in 5 foot high script "FUCK AL QUAIDA" in cod wildstyle.

Does this represent anything beyond truculent well-heeled street-artists becoming just slightly more conservative.

I don't know about you but when I got this email asking me to march on Downing Street and express my disgust at Shoot On Sight (even in the light of Jean Charles de Menezes's death) from Stop The War (http://www.stopwar.org.uk) I couldn't believe they were really serious. Did that march really go ahead? It looks like it might have had its date moved! Did anyone even consider joining it?

Islamic Extremism (violent or not) is going to have a devil of a time now its alienated the enormous amount of people who went out and demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq (for the record I wasnt one of those people....)

Woebot
05-08-2005, 10:42 AM
noting too the recent shift in US policy from GWOT to SAVE...

henrymiller
05-08-2005, 11:32 AM
how is saying 'fuck al quaeda' conservative? wtf?

henrymiller
05-08-2005, 11:34 AM
Islamic Extremism (violent or not) is going to have a devil of a time now its alienated the enormous amount of people who went out and demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq (for the record I wasnt one of those people....)

er, again, wtf? i did march, and i was already pretty alienated from islamic extremism thanks but no thanks! it is fully entitled to having a devil of a time, before 7/7, before 9/11.

Omaar
05-08-2005, 12:44 PM
Err I'd probably march against the 'shoot on sight' policy if I was in the UK.

henrymiller
05-08-2005, 01:10 PM
i might have, but the march was from the off actually a 'stop the war', bring-our-boys-home march. it exploited the death of an innocent man to make fairly doubtful surmises about the bombings ("if we hadn't invaded iraq, this would never have happened, therefore blair is responsible!").

Buick6
05-08-2005, 01:33 PM
how is saying 'fuck al quaeda' conservative? wtf?

Exactly. It's the same as saying fuck Adolph Hitler. Al Quaida are simply an extreme-right-wing Islamist group, they've never been anything else. The mind boggles how some people just don't understand this basic concept.

Pearsall
05-08-2005, 03:57 PM
Exactly. It's the same as saying fuck Adolph Hitler. Al Quaida are simply an extreme-right-wing Islamist group, they've never been anything else. The mind boggles how some people just don't understand this basic concept.

Wrong wrong wrong!

They are simply an anti-imperialist group representing the oppressed of the world that have been pushed into acting by the Je...er, the Zionists. You need to look at the 'root causes', and then you will see how poverty caused by the White Man (and 'international financiers') has led Sheikh Osama to attempt to throw off the chains of his oppression.

[/sarcasm]

Pearsall
05-08-2005, 06:39 PM
Not that I'm saying Matt takes such an approach, of course.

Buick6
06-08-2005, 02:55 AM
Wrong wrong wrong!

They are simply an anti-imperialist group representing the oppressed of the world that have been pushed into acting by the Je...er, the Zionists. You need to look at the 'root causes', and then you will see how poverty caused by the White Man (and 'international financiers') has led Sheikh Osama to attempt to throw off the chains of his oppression.

[/sarcasm]

Yeah it's the decadent Gay Jewish lobby in collusion with the Zionist media (even if most of the media is owned by White Protestants) conspiracy - the Oil Shieks are innocent because Capitalism was a Jewish invention, just like Marxism and Psychiatry and all those other 'Western' disgusting ideas :confused:

sufi
07-08-2005, 03:21 PM
i wonder whether only using bombers from "minority communities" was a consciously divisive strategy? if for example a white british convert had been involved how would the bombings effects on "community relations" be affected, and in whose interests would that have been?


...decadent Gay lobby...
yeah i had this conversation yesterday, :( :confused: not with a muslim though,



5 foot high script "FUCK AL QUAIDA" in cod wildstyle
may we have a piccy please ? :D

Woebot
08-08-2005, 11:37 AM
may we have a piccy please ? :D

as luck would have it

Woebot
08-08-2005, 11:43 AM
how is saying 'fuck al quaeda' conservative? wtf?

sort of baffled by your outraged tone here. leaving ethics aside, within the context of graffiti, isnt such a statement unusually close to the governments line?

henrymiller
08-08-2005, 12:39 PM
sort of baffled by your outraged tone here. leaving ethics aside, within the context of graffiti, isnt such a statement unusually close to the governments line?

sort of baffled by how much crack you're on. whatkind of tone is appropriate? do you *really* thing being anti-AQ is 'conservative'? why leave the ethics of being mass-murderers aside? AQ may well be government enemies, but they are also enemies of the people. there is nothing in AQ to get behind. unless this is some kind of post-vice 'omg homophobia and anti-semitism is cool' thing, which can go eat a dick.

sufi
08-08-2005, 03:17 PM
as luck would have itThanks Star!

... back on topic....
i think henry is illustrating the kind of kneejerk reaction that is characteristic of these troubled times ;) . there is not meant to be middle ground anymore, no space for ambivalence or neutrality... your either pro-war or anti, & if you disagree with me then your a crackhead


was it bush who said:
"you're either with us or against us"
or was it bin laden???

the blair government's moves towards this utterly nebulous '3rd way' seem only to have increased & encouraged conservatism (immigration), nimbyism (ASBOs), authoritarianism (ID Cards), militarism (TWOT, GulfWarII)... and all the things we hate,

this current climate really favors crackhead/psychotic/extremist mentality, sometimes it feels like you got to be spychjo to get ahead... even banksyism is on the increase :mad:

henrymiller
08-08-2005, 03:24 PM
bite me, sufi. i've had 4 years to reflect on the fact i don't like AQ. "no space for ambivalence or neutrality"? no, there isn't, really. the real kneejerk reaction is surely woebot's, which is that AQ is not the government, so must have some whiff of radicalism.
perhaps i'm being unfair, but why the 'ambivalence'? what part of blowing civilians up in pursuit of the millennium don't you disapprove of?

henrymiller
08-08-2005, 03:34 PM
iow, the kneejerk, with-us-or-against-us line says that you can't be anti-AQ and anti-war. this is pish. thinking AQ's line on iraq has anything in common with the principled anti-war feeling demonstrated in london is dangerous nonsense.

sufi
08-08-2005, 04:40 PM
plenty of space for a multiplicity of kneejerk reactionary movements in the 21st century... a veritable can-can - yours', the bot's, mine, even?

i couldn't say myself that i am wholeheartedly for or against the war, it's too complex a question to answer so simplistically,
the anti-war marchers didn't really address the concerns of the kurds, among others, who wanted rid of Saddam, so that meant that the hawks could write them off as appeasers, unfortunately it's in the interest of the hawks (in both camps) to maintain this duality, as they are the ones running the war.

what do you think of my original question, henry?


wonder whether only using bombers from "minority communities" was a consciously divisive strategy? if for example a white british convert had been involved how would the bombings effects on "community relations" be affected, and in whose interests would that have been?

henrymiller
08-08-2005, 04:46 PM
yeah, i was ambivalent about the war: i marched against, but mainly because i thought the chances of peace well slim. i don't have a big problem with interventionism per se. but i'm not ambivalent about al-quaeda, i don't see any grey area there.


wonder whether only using bombers from "minority communities" was a consciously divisive strategy? if for example a white british convert had been involved how would the bombings effects on "community relations" be affected, and in whose interests would that have been?

it's a good question. we don't know enough about the bombers yet to say. have any british converts spoken out in favour of the bombings? possibly the bombers, the london ones anyway, felt more 'alienated' by godless brit society than white muslims with deeper roots in england. i don't know. to be honest, the identities of the bombers is good tabloid stuff, but the real story is surely their place in a larger network. i don't think the press would have been any less hostile toward radical islam is the bombers had been white, at any rate.

sufi
08-08-2005, 05:55 PM
but i'm not ambivalent about al-quaeda
yeah but you can't even spell it, so the taggers are 1 step ahead there, innit!
;)

sufi
08-08-2005, 06:05 PM
my own feelings on AlQ (Al-Qa'ida would be my best transliteration): i don't want to be publicly judgemental for the mo , i would'nt like to diss them now if i'm gonna get in shit when the khilafa comes! ;)

but seriously...
there is a deep desire to misunderstand the suicide bombers - i've heard a lot of folk saying stuff like: "o they're just loonies," "o you can never get to the bottom of these insoluble religious/tribal/cultural hatreds" (cf also: british attitude to Northern Ireland, US attitude to Israel/Palestine)
that's a dangerously lazy approach, that plays into the hands of the hawks, on both sides, again

Hen:
if you went on the march then you got something in common with AlQ, you may not call them 'crusaders' but you got issues with western invasion of the middle east & you voted with your feet.
The bombs in London are not military strikes as much as propaganda strikes, that would less effective, imho, if we didnt have these mammoth contradictions in our 'democratic' polity - cf. Madrid.

phew

henrymiller
09-08-2005, 09:48 AM
i have 'something in common' with AQ in that i don't agree with everything george bush does. but my reasons for opposing the war are very different from AQ's. i think the prospect of islamic theocracy in iraq is dire, no better than iraq under bush. i opposed the war, but have no idea whether 'we' should withdraw. the idea of 'clean hands' now is laughable. the only pragmatic thing is to try for some kind of peace. staying won't achieve that, neither will pulling out. fucked if i know.
it doesn't matter if the bombs were military or propaganda (i don't think they're either, actually). understanding the 'root causes' is something we need to do anyway. don't flatter AQ by saying that they represent s the desires of palestinians or iraqis (or chechens, or, as they say, bosnians): they don't. understanding why many muslims are angry about palestine tells us not very much about the network of terrorists.