k-punk on terror

Status
Not open for further replies.

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
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.
 

mms

sometimes
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

All guesswork
henrymiller said:
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

Well-known member
DigitalDjigit said:
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Member
MBM said:
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?

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

henrymiller said:
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

All guesswork
MBM said:
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

All guesswork
'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

Well-known member
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

Honky Tonk Woman
henrymiller said:
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

Well-known member
<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

All guesswork
henrymiller said:
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

All guesswork
henrymiller said:
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

All guesswork
henrymiller said:
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

Well-known member
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

Spectres of Mark
johneffay said:
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 did take place.... What does it mean?
 

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
henrymiller said:
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

Spectres of Mark
henrymiller said:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top