Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: k-punk on terror

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    what do you make of the position of the kurds?
    i honestly don't know what to make of their position.



    Quote Originally Posted by MBM
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by MBM
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by MBM
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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).

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    791

    Default

    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.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    639

    Default

    What about the possibility that it was a false flag campaign.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...neasysteps.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.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,899

    Default

    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

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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?
    It's never been explained

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Flatlands
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalDjigit
    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...

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    84

    Default

    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?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBM
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    'meant to be' hmm? actually, this idea of the muslim brotherhood is pretty offensive.
    why?

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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"?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBM
    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?
    It's never been explained

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

    '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.
    It's never been explained

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •