Originally Posted by henrymiller
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?
It's never been explained