Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...

  Dirty Forums > world.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-14-2011, 09:29 AM
//\/\/
slogging it out
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: north of centre
Posts: 1,905
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
Why shouldn't one be supportive of, or tolerant towards 'muslims in general'?
__________________
uw0761
nutts2020
  #52  
Old 05-14-2011, 10:33 AM
Deckard
issue 37
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,244
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
Speak of the devil.

US charges six with aiding Pakistani Taliban

What with that and other recent events, I fear this is all going to end very badly for Pakistan. A shame, because no country's civilians have suffered so much at the hands of al-Qaeda attacks as Pakistan - more than all other countries combined, I recently read.

Oh joy. It's a good job they're not a nuclear power, isn't it?
  #53  
Old 05-14-2011, 03:03 PM
human151
deletion
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 36
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
Speak of the devil.

US charges six with aiding Pakistani Taliban

What with that and other recent events, I fear this is all going to end very badly for Pakistan. A shame, because no country's civilians have suffered so much at the hands of al-Qaeda attacks as Pakistan - more than all other countries combined, I recently read.

Oh joy. It's a good job they're not a nuclear power, isn't it?

that story illustrates exactly why I am distrustful of muslims. How do you know who is honorable and who is not? Its difficult to give them all a pass when they have enemies hiding amongst them.
__________________
Do you believe that is air you are breathing?
  #54  
Old 05-15-2011, 03:36 AM
//\/\/
slogging it out
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: north of centre
Posts: 1,905
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
(you just lock yourself up away from all the scary people - the only person you can really trust is yourself, eh?)
__________________
uw0761
nutts2020
  #55  
Old 05-15-2011, 08:26 AM
Deckard
issue 37
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Wales
Posts: 1,244
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
6 Muslims. Out of approx 2 MILLION living in America. LOL

Wait... TWO MILLION Muslims living in America?

oooooOOOOOOOOOooooooo!!!!

Incidentally, it was rather more than 6 of your countrymen providing financial support to the IRA not so long ago, some of whose contributions will have been used to kill and maim my countrymen.

Which illustrates exactly why I am distrustful of..... oh hold on..... I'm not.

But let's get back to the important point here... 2 millions MUSLIMS living in America, Chris... TWO MILLION!!!
  #56  
Old 05-16-2011, 11:53 AM
//\/\/
slogging it out
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: north of centre
Posts: 1,905
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
I've had a pub I used to frequent regularly blown up by the IRA, with 1 person killed. I've had my workplace targetted twice by the IRA.

Did I go round holding all Irish people responsible? No. Though plenty of people did. This happened throughout 'the Troubles', where people and the police would mistreat innoccent people. It was a MASSIVE propaganda and recruitment tool for the terrorists.

You, Mr Human, are being played by the extremists. You are their dream candidate acting precisely as they'd predict and wish. Think on...
__________________
uw0761
nutts2020
  #57  
Old 05-17-2011, 08:47 AM
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
SystematicallyDisadsomthg
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: THE PLAsTIC VOORRTEEXXX!!!
Posts: 3,569
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
I've heard a number of senior police and military officers dispute that - quite senior figures such as Sir Ian Blair who was Met Police Commissioner at the time of the 7/7 London bombings ("Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working") Most intelligence analysts seem to agree that the typical structure of al-Qaeda is more one of networks than of formal terrorist organisation. In that sense, it's closer to the post 1960s feminist movement than it is to the IRA (and no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists. I'm talking from a purely structural point of view - ie. the shared lack of a common organisational structure or code of conduct.)

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

All this might seem somewhat academic - at the end of the day, they're a terror group of some sort. But it's important in the debate about support and funding and what we're up against. Certainly there IS funding and there IS support. But it's not remotely necessary that there need be a steady stream of money continually flowing into it, like a political party, in order for terrorists to carry out atrocities. If you're a single extremist Muslim in Britain looking to cause a devastating amount of carnage, you can do so using simple household products as home-made explosives. At the very least, you can cause an enormous amount of disruption by planning it in a thoughtful way. That requires virtually zero support or funding. It doesn't even require other Muslims to know about it or agree with it.

That's obviously on a different order of magnitude to the Taleban, which is receiving enormous funding and support from -somewhere- in order to keep "the most powerful Nations on earth" on their toes. And the same with a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, which I believe would have not only required OBL's personal funding, but also funding from other Muslims sympathetic to the cause. *cough*ISI*cough*

But when it comes to car bombs and suicide attacks, it's quite scary to reflect how easy it would be to carry something like that out, at least if you have the will to do it. I've often been astounded that there haven't been many more terrorist attacks in this country. Think about it. That should be the real story you take home about the 1.5 million Muslims living in Britain - the sheer scarcity of such events, given the huge population of Muslims. Yes there are bound to be many attempts - some that we never hear about. But the security services can only thwart so many of them.

Had to chime in here: What I'd pay to hear Queen E. say "WTF?", like, out loud.
__________________
8=====)~~(=====8

  #58  
Old 05-17-2011, 04:20 PM
myrrh
a small-minded madman
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: minneapolis
Posts: 248
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
Quote:
Originally Posted by human151 View Post
that story illustrates exactly why I am distrustful of muslims. How do you know who is honorable and who is not? Its difficult to give them all a pass when they have enemies hiding amongst them.
You can tell the honorable ones because they are going about their everyday business not really caring about the likes of you. Such as it says in the Qur'an:

"Say: Oh you who disbelieve! I worship not that which you worship. Nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion." 108:1-6

With regards to Muslims not condemning terrorists, this is a complete misnomer, propagated by Western Conservatives in general. Shaykh Bin Baz, who died 12 years ago, and was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia - who allowed the US to come into the Kingdom to fight against Saddam Hussien warned against Bin Laden back then. In fact, it was he who refused Bin Laden entry into Saudi Arabia to fight against Saddam when Saddam invaded Kuwait. This action was the tipping point of Bin Laden's life, when he turned to terrorism.

So, Bin Laden and all the other groups out there, are known and have been known, and are advised against, and have been advised against by the Muslim leaders for the past 60 years. However, you never hear about it because you probably don't speak Arabic, nor do you probably read Arab newspapers, nor do you probably follow Muslim Scholars, or the like.

Such things are not put out there on US news because then the masses would see that the actions of our government are uncalled for, and we don't have to live in a state of terror 24/7, nor do we have to distrust our neighbors because they look different etc.

If you made the smallest amount of effort to search out how terrorism is condemned by Muslim leaders, you would find out that it is constantly done so. However, you probably have not, nor would you probably believe it anyway.
  #59  
Old 05-18-2011, 11:09 PM
bryantm3
It's Written In The Book!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: alpharetta
Posts: 1,101
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
+1
  #60  
Old 05-21-2011, 01:37 AM
BeautifulBurnout
MadMinistrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,520
Re: British muslims protest Bin ladens death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard View Post
no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists.
That was close....

Quote:
Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.
Reminds me of the article Robin Cook (RIP) wrote for the Guardian the day after the 7th July bombings. I will post it here in full as I think he had it bang on the nail. And - getting my tinfoil hat out - I am still suspicious about the way he died of a heart attack while out hillwalking on his own.....

Quote:
I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead. The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.

It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?

But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?

At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.

Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.

In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.

But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.
In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.

And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.
__________________
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" - Emma Goldman
Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.