Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: k-punk on terror

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    84

    Default

    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

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

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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

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

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johneffay
    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?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    South London
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k-punk
    Thing is though that exercise 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?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hint
    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.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    226

    Default

    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.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by henrymiller
    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.
    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
  •