The Terrorist Attacks in London

Some Questions for Tony Blair

from JoeUser Forums
The bomb attaks in London took place when Londoners were going about their normal work. The tube trains were probably targetted because of their symbolic value and also provided an easy soft target. This was an attack on civillian non combatants and there fore needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. This kind of terrorist attackis not onlo bad for Islam but if it is done in the name of Islam damages the very cause for which it was done in the first place. LIke the Madrid Train bombing this event was also designed to influence British public opinion. One unfortunate consequence of this terror attack has been the physical and mental harassment of Asian minority in London, Birmingham, and other places. The entire Asian Community in England has withnone voice condemned the attacks and hence there is no justification for attacks on Asians. It is unfortunate that non white minorities are being targetted in England as reprissal for the Tube Train Bombings. Tony Blair and his Home Secretary must provide adeqyuate security to Asians living in Britain. Three religious houses have also been attacked. The British public should not play into the hands of the perpetrators of these atacks by becoming vengeful and anti Asian.

The real reason behind the attacks is clear:The involvement of Tony Blair and his Governemnt in Iraq. The Spanish people voted out the Government that took them to war in Iraq, the British people reelected that government.

Thre are some reports that the British Government is likely to ask Australia to stand in for the UK after a pull out from Britain.. The strikes have provaked a debate for the first time in England over the wisdom of being involved in Iraq.

The graceful speech of Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London, was the only decent response from a high profile public figure in England. Tony Blair was his usual arrogant self wihout a trace of sorrow or remorse.
politics
10,467 views 27 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The real reason behind the attacks is clear:The involvement of Tony Blair and his Governemnt in Iraq. The Spanish people voted out the Government that took them to war in Iraq, the British people reelected that government.

Thre are some reports that the British Government is likely to ask Australia to stand in for the UK after a pull out from Britain.. The strikes have provaked a debate for the first time in England over the wisdom of being involved in Iraq.

The graceful speech of Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London, was the only decent response from a high profile public figure in England. Tony Blair was his usual arrogant self wihout a trace of sorrow or remorse. "


There's a stark comparison between the first and last half of your article. It's really, really sad to me that you would take a situation like this and say "See, that's what you get for re-electing Blair's government."

Before you take issue with the interpretation, look at what you said:

"The real reason behind the attacks is clear:The involvement of Tony Blair and his Governemnt in Iraq. The Spanish people voted out the Government that took them to war in Iraq, the British people reelected that government. "


Such a statement betrays the goodwill you offered when you condemned the attacks. It's akin to condemning a rape and then lambasting the woman for being promiscuous. NO ACTION taken by the British public or the British people speaks to the "reason" this was done. We can accept NO PROVOCATION for such an action, because to do so then lends to the idea that it had been provoked.

This is no different than people who say that the innocent killed in the Middle East "asked for it" by allowing terrorism to thrive, or that the Palestinian people deserve their suffering because they keep voting for Hamas. The reality is no one but the terrorists deserve destruction.

It saddens me that you don't offer condolences to the dead, but that what you are specifically concerned with how this hurts Islam and reiterating the sad idea that Britain somehow "asked for it."
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The real reason behind the attacks is clear:The involvement of Tony Blair and his Governemnt in Iraq.

The actual real reason is that there are people out there whose minds are so destroyed by hatred that they lash out every chance they get. Don't try to give excuses for terrorist acts because there arn't any.
Terrorism must be combatted and the guilty parties must be sought after, caught and punished for their barbaric deeds.
No excuse is justified for the horrors these animals perpetrate.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree Bahu, there is no excuse for going after Asians in England because of this cowardly attack by the bacteria. They didn't do it, their leaders condemned it, and anyone who would attack an Asian in retaliation for the bombings were merely looking for an excuse to do a little terrorizing themselves.

As for the rest of your statement, I agree with Bakerstreet. Apparently to you, the rape victim must have deserved it, and as long as Blair is PM of England these attacks are somehow justified.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The strikes have provaked a debate for the first time in England over the wisdom of being involved in Iraq.


This is misinformed rubbish! What do you mean "for the first time"? There has not only been debate, there has been a lot of activism in the UK both for and against the war from the get go. Didn't you notice the 1 million protestors in the middle of London in 2003?

It's quite clear what your agenda is - offering crocodile tears for the victims while seeking to 'justify' the attacks: "The real reason behind the attacks is clear... the British people reelected that government"

The British public should not play into the hands of the perpetrators of these atacks by becoming vengeful and anti Asian.


What kind of stupidity is this! There are a lot of Asians amongst the British public, in case you hadn't noticed. I'm sorry to hear "Three religious houses have" apparently "also been attacked". I hope that it goes no further, but frankly that doesn't suggest to me a wholesale spirit of vengeance from the British people, just the usual tiny number of hate-crazed racist nutters (ab)using an opportunity to do their thing.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Such a statement betrays the goodwill you offered when you condemned the attacks. It's akin to condemning a rape and then lambasting the woman for being promiscuous.'
Only if you choose to view the UK as the rape victim. Analyse the situation from an Iraqi perspective and it's not hard to perceive this less as a rape, and more as retribution FOR a rape.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I bet you think Sept. 11 was because of Iraq also, right.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Such a statement betrays the goodwill you offered when you condemned the attacks. It's akin to condemning a rape and then lambasting the woman for being promiscuous.'
Only if you choose to view the UK as the rape victim. Analyse the situation from an Iraqi perspective and it's not hard to perceive this less as a rape, and more as retribution FOR a rape.


And just "why" should we view it from an Iraqi perspective? Are they the ones that died from the bomb blast? NO! The Brits are! Did the "Brits" kill women and children in Iraq? NO! But "someone" sure messed up a bunch of them in the British bombings!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Did the "Brits" kill women and children in Iraq? NO!'
Der - are you kidding?


No, but I guess you are! So by using your strange brand of logic, because some of our missles/bombs hit innocent people that we're next and we somehow like the Brits might deserve it??
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is NO legitimate justification for the DELIBERATE and indescriminant targeting of CIVILIANS in such a cowardly attack. Period. Anyone who believes there that there is justification for these terrorist attacks is no better than the scum who carry them out. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is NO legitimate justification for the DELIBERATE and indescriminant targeting of CIVILIANS in such a cowardly attack. Period. Anyone who believes there that there is justification for these terrorist attacks is no better than the scum who carry them out. What the hell is wrong with you people?


Right On Mason!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

There is NO legitimate justification for the DELIBERATE and indescriminant targeting of CIVILIANS in such a cowardly attack. Period. Anyone who believes there that there is justification for these terrorist attacks is no better than the scum who carry them out. What the hell is wrong with you people


--Hmmm
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
'So by using your strange brand of logic, because some of our missles/bombs hit innocent people that we're next and we somehow like the Brits might deserve it??'
WHAT? I can assume only that the voices told you this, drmiler, because I certainly didn't. Get well soon!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
can accept NO PROVOCATION for such an action, because to do so then lends to the idea that it had been provoked.


excuse is justified for the horrors these animals perpetrate.Bonus Rating: Trolling


long as Blair is PM of England these attacks are somehow justified.Bonus Rating: Trolling


First: I agree with Baker Street that my write up gives a veiled hint of an imprpper response. That was not my intention. I condemn that cowardly attack in the strongest possible terms because civillians and non combatants were killed. All I ask for is a similar recognition that civillians are being killed in other parts of the world in the name of the WAR against Terrorism. Please do not read this as a justification:my purpose is only to draw a parallel that when women and children are killed either in a terrorist attack in London or New York or by the insurgents and their adversaries the result is the same: HUMAN SUFFERING IN the MOST UNSPEAKABLE MANNER.

The world has not become safer after the invasion of Iraq. It has become far more unsafe.What pains me in this whole episode is that the British [pyblic are paying for the sins of Tony Blair and his war mongering cronies. Hence the statement about Spain. Again it is only a factual statement.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I acknowledge that civilians are dying, because they are being used as human shields by the terrorists who hide among them. There is a difference between "killed" and "murdered", though, and one does not justify the other.

And no, I don't think you made it clear regarding your "factual statement". You didn't just say that the public was paying for the "sins" of Blair. You said:

"The Spanish people voted out the Government that took them to war in Iraq, the British people reelected that government. "


Which seems to say to me that they were asking for it. Contrary to what many might think, we shouldn't be led to the voting booth by threats. If so, we will live oppressed by nations half-a-world away, simply because they finance terrorist who impose their will on us.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is NO legitimate justification for the DELIBERATE and indescriminant targeting of CIVILIANS in such a cowardly attack. Period. Anyone who believes there that there is justification for these terrorist attacks is no better than the scum who carry them out. What the hell is wrong with you people?


There has been comment that those responsible are Londoners. If that is true than it becomes more difficult to apply an extreme wahhabi/punshon islam profile to the terrorist model. It is no longer us and against them.
Link
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There has been comment that those responsible are Londoners. If that is true than it becomes more difficult to apply an extreme wahhabi/punshon islam profile to the terrorist model. It is no longer us and against them."


Ur, really? I don't agree. Or are you saying that where you live determines whether you are truly an Islamic terrorist?

They are also saying that the weapons used came from Eastern Europe. Were the terrorists, say, in Chechnya not of the "wahhabi/punshon islam profile"? If homegrown al Qaeda cells pop up, can you really make a difference between them and bin Laden, just because of where they live?

To me, this actually defeats the Liberal stereotype of the "downtrodden Middle East" getting back at us. In reality this proves that it is a socio-political ethos, not some "freedom fighter" crap caused by western oppression and poverty in the Middle East.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The tube trains were probably targetted because of their symbolic value and also provided an easy soft target. This was an attack on civillian non combatants and there fore needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.


Just as an aside, this sounds almost like the the contras in Nicaragua (attacking soft targets and civilians)

Which seems to say to me that they were asking for it. Contrary to what many might think, we shouldn't be led to the voting booth by threats. If so, we will live oppressed by nations half-a-world away, simply because they finance terrorist who impose their will on us.


And the difference between that and America imposing its will on the rest of the world for 60 years is what exactly?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And the difference between that and America imposing its will on the rest of the world for 60 years is what exactly?"


Oddly, we haven't been sending people to blow themselves up on buses in Russia, or China. We have a full arsenal of nuclear weapons, and, strangly enough, the world is free to choose their own governance as long as they don't threaten us.

I wonder if the same would be true if bin Laden had a few hundred nukes? You're full of it if you think you can equate the US's view of the world with terrorist's view of the world. I'm sorry, but people who do this kind of moralist equation are SCUM. All you do is bolster the idea that people who murder schoolchildren and other innocent civilians are just as morally right as the US.

You reinforce their propaganda, and if it weren't for the fact that you do it out of self-righteous moral indignance, I'd say you were a cowardly tool. Instead, you're an snotty, self-superior tool that preaches the cause of terrorists to make yourself look more elevated.

How can you live with yourself knowing people who suicide-bomb people's wedding parties and behead aid workers would give your perspective a standing ovation?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ur, really? I don't agree. Or are you saying that where you live determines whether you are truly an Islamic terrorist?


What I am saying is the angry young man with nothing to lose is the likely candidate for recruitment. In a western society you won't experience the ethnic cleansing of Chechnya. If you cannot apply a situation of extreme misery - like Sudan for instance than the motivation is not religiously based. It is political. IE no extreme brainwashing through religious-only study.

To clarify it takes years of non secular religous study [religous-only] at a pakastani madrass to arrive with a person who shouts the name of Allah with a bomb on his back. It doesn't happen overnight, not in a G8 country and if it does happen, religion did not play a primary role. There are many other reasons to have conflict with America.

They are also saying that the weapons used came from Eastern Europe. Were the terrorists, say, in Chechnya not of the "wahhabi/punshon islam profile"? If homegrown al Qaeda cells pop up, can you really make a difference between them and bin Laden, just because of where they live?


Chechnya is a whole different catagory, suffering from mass ethnic cleansing and serious resettlement problems. A very different kettle of fish.

Without the indoctrination we need to look for reasons other than religous fundamentalism. If we don't we'll just sit around and wait for the next "sleeper" to awaken. We'll wonder how this could have happened and come up with nothing. No amount of homeland security will buy you that type of protection.

The problem is deeper - one that looks at both the political and economic repercussions of who and what america does business with. My point? Supporting the wrong people because it is profitable but not ethical leads to problems that cannot be resolved until the american assistance is stopped. I can think of a few examples.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
'To clarify it takes years of non secular religous study [religous-only] at a pakastani madrass to arrive with a person who shouts the name of Allah with a bomb on his back. It doesn't happen overnight, not in a G8 country and if it does happen, religion did not play a primary role. There are many other reasons to have conflict with America.


Really? I don't agree. There's been enough instances of cult violence in the US and around the world perpetrated by people who were full grown adults when they joined to discount that. Did the Japanese cult that undertook a gas attack on their subway nab their members as small children?

No, people are impressionable, especially people who have to deal with the constant anti-US propaganda and the cultural sympathies they might feel in combination. In my experience people who come to religion later in life are just as easily moved to radicalism if they have a propensity for such in the first place.

Teens in the US get guns and pipe bombs and go to school with nothing but teen angst to drive them. Add radical Islam or political indoctrination to that and you still can't see the possiblity?

I don't doubt, though, that many, many terrorists aren't all that religious, and just use it as an excuse for their racist or political hate. That I can grant you. As long as they fight under the banner of religion to validate their acts, though, you have to deal with it as such. There's no reason to lump Islam as a whole into it, though.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
After this post was put up the Royal Socity of International Affairs, the respected think tank Chatam House came up with a report ssaying the same thing"the Iraq factor". Terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it can be beaten only when the political conditions that give rise to it are met squarely and fairly.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
After this post was put up the Royal Society of International Affairs, the respected think tank Chatam House came up with a report saying the same thing"the Iraq factor". Terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it can be beaten only when the political conditions that give rise to it are met squarely and fairly.


Sorry, but I don't buy into this theory. If you make it "costly" enough ( kill enough of them) for them to do business it will stop soon enough.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Terrorism cannot be defeated militarily, it can be beaten only when the political conditions that give rise to it are met squarely and fairly.


You mean when countries give in to terrorists demands. Appeasement will not end terrorism, only fighting it will.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just should the terrorists in the head as you find them. Forget the trials and listening to them whine and pretend they did not want to hurt people. In the end, they are simple cowards who find imature and youths to do their dirty work.

As for Britian waking up to not being in Iraq... not gonna happen.