London Terrorist Attacks

[crazyhorse1]

[quote="Redskin in Canada"]Time to shift the efforts of all Nations against Osama Bin Laden without other distractions.

Absolutely true. It's time for our government to wake the hell up.

[crazyhorse1]

I cannot call "beautiful" any religion that teaches killing of the "infidels" -- I know I'll get slammed for this, but Franklin Graham was dead on when he called it an evil religion. It's a militant, pugnacious faith.[/quote]

Do you have a bible in your house? Try reading the Old Testament!

[Redskin in Canada]

I think Axis of Evil is what you were looking for there.

Undoubtedly. I was too upset to think clearly because I am just receiving news from friends in London.

On topic, please have a look at a recent review of Al Qaeda by PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/

and Al Qaeda's New Front:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ront/view/

While you are at it, have a look at Rumsfeld's War:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

[welch]

Too much like New York:

Photos Plead: Have You Seen This Person?
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

LONDON, July 9 - As work crews battle rats and crumbling walls to reach the bombed-out train and remaining bodies at the King's Cross Underground station, passers-by, just above them, linger before the images of the men and women who are still nowhere to be found.

Their faces are plastered on walls, fences, bus stops, newspapers and Web sites, displaying loving looks and sultry glances, ear-to-ear grins and impish smirks.

They represent the missing at the best of times, the only times really when people bother to take photographs: Ojara Ikeagwu dons a graduation cap; Phil Beer wears a tuxedo; John Steadman unwraps presents; Christian Small smiles at the camera; Karolina Gluck, with her spiky blond hair, grins mischievously.

The heartache is revealed only below the pictures, where friends and families have scribbled urgent pleas. "Karolina is still missing," says one, eerily reminiscent of the posters that blanketed New York City in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Two days after London was rocked by four explosions leaving at least 49 dead, 20 to 50 people remain unaccounted for by hospitals, coroners, friends and relatives.

It is feared that some of them may have died at the King's Cross station, which took the hardest hit, or on the double-decker bus that blew up nearby. Crews are still trying to reach the wreckage of the subway car at King's Cross, but the police have said many bodies are trapped in the rubble below. They can see them, but they cannot get to them.

Reflecting London's diversity, many of the missing traveled long and far to arrive here. They are Polish and Turkish and American. They come from Mauritius, Germany and Australia. A few are Muslim, and they are almost all young. Ms. Gluck, for example, is a 29-year-old Polish immigrant.

"I've cried a lot," said Richard Deer, who is Ms. Gluck's boyfriend. "It's so up and down. But she would stand out. Her hair would stand out. She was honestly very special. I keep calling the police. I called them three times, and they said they had nothing new. I told them I would continue to call until I was blue in the face."

The family and friends of the missing are persisting in their search, even as hope begins to ebb, if only slightly.

They have scoured hospitals, handed out pictures to passers-by, contacted reporters and called the police. They double back and double check. Now, there is little to do but wait, and in some cases, talk.

Karolina Gluck left her North London apartment on Thursday morning, visions of Paris swirling in her head.

After eight months together, she and Mr. Deer were planning a cozy weekend trip to Paris. "A romantic holiday," Mr. Deer called it, just him and "Sunshine," as he calls Ms. Gluck.

Ms. Gluck arrived in London from Chorzow, in the south of Poland, nearly four years ago. She was determined to master English and get a good job, Mr. Deer said. She accomplished both, starting as a receptionist at a student residence and working her way up to deputy head of receptionists.

"See you later," Ms. Gluck called out to him. Then, he recalled, she walked away, dressed head to toe in black, her blond, spiky hair bobbing up and down as she headed for the Finsbury Park subway. Her final stop was supposed to be Russell Square, near the spot where bombs blew up a subway train and a bus.

He tried to call her later that morning at work, at Goodenough College, but got bounced to her voice mail. He tried her cellphone, but got bounced to voice mail again. He resorted to e-mail, but never heard back.

They do not know where she is. They do not know if she is injured, dead or simply missing.

"She was like a star," said Magda Gluck, Ms. Gluck's twin sister, slipping into the past tense.

John Hyman, whose 32-year-old daughter, Miriam, is missing, knows a few things for certain: she was uninjured when she left the Underground.

She was not on the bus because the bus exploded at about the time he was on the phone with her. Soon after, she called her workplace, and was told not to bother to come in. That was at 10 a.m., after the attacks, he said.

"I don't see how she could have got into the bus that exploded," he said. "And the route makes no sense, whether she's going to work or home."

Her cellphone goes unanswered. Ms. Hyman's friends have papered the town with her image and raced to hospitals.

"I haven't got a plausible explanation," her father said. "She is the kind of person that if she was not going to get home in the evening, she would have told us and phoned home."

Ms. Hyman, a freelance photographer, moved back in with her parents a few years ago, daunted by London's sky-high property prices.

Her parents never even saw her that morning. "She left the house before we got out of bed," Mr. Hyman said.

Monika Suchocka, 23, called her friend Tracy Purdon Thursday morning to tell her about the mess at King's Cross: trains diverted, signal failures, lines closed down. She would take the bus to work instead, she said. Now Ms. Suchocka is one of the missing.

She arrived in London from Poland only two months ago. Like so many others in this expensive city, she shared an apartment, in her case, with two other Poles. She found a job right away in administration at London First, a work placement program.

She joined a choir here and, when she could, she played the piano. "This was her first time in London and she was really enjoying the excitement of it all," Ms. Purdon said.

Her parents are at a loss. They are in Poland and speak no English. But in grief, their reaction is universal. "They are devastated," Ms. Purdon said.

Rachelle Chung For Yuen came to London from Mauritius five years ago to study and work.

Falling in love with a man also from Mauritius was an unexpected bonus. The two married last year on their native island, which also seemed the perfect place to honeymoon.

In her time off, Ms. Yuen played backgammon. She loved movies but had no qualms about spending a quiet evening at home.

She left her North London apartment for work at 7:30 a.m., heading for the subway, the Piccadilly Line, as she always did. Then she vanished.

"We've done everything we could," said her brother-in-law, Jeffray Chung. "We don't know what to do any more apart from waiting for a phone call."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/inter ... ssing.html

[JPFair]

It's a terrible thing that happened in London. But, notice one thing that has yet to be mentioned....IRAQ. Why? Because there is NO connection between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq.

The only way Iraq enters into this equation is because of Britains support for the U.S. in it's invasion of Iraq, and it's assistance in Afghanistan. I guarantee you, if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, but maintained a presence in Afghanistan, what happened it London would not have happened.

It's only been a few days now, but mark my words: Any minute now, when the time is right and the dust has settled, Bush will incorporate what happened in London to further his agenda in Iraq. How sad!

[SkinsLaVar]

It's a terrible thing that happened in London. But, notice one thing that has yet to be mentioned....IRAQ. Why? Because there is NO connection between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq.

The only way Iraq enters into this equation is because of Britains support for the U.S. in it's invasion of Iraq, and it's assistance in Afghanistan. I guarantee you, if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq, but maintained a presence in Afghanistan, what happened it London would not have happened.

It's only been a few days now, but mark my words: Any minute now, when the time is right and the dust has settled, Bush will incorporate what happened in London to further his agenda in Iraq. How sad!

JP...Do tou think none of this would have happened if Kerry was president?

[NikiH]

The thing that blows my mind about your reasoning JP is you blame our activity there for this attack but maintain that it is not related in any way to Al Queda. I think you are dead wrong. Going to Iraq and battling the terror that was happening there in my view is like letting the school bully see you standing up for yourself with another bully. It's gonna piss them off but it's also going to tell them that you aren't taking crap from anyone. Saddam was a bully (terrorist) and by dealing with him we are lessening the chances of something along the lines of Sept. 11th happening again. I guarentee you that the terrorists of the world saw those attacks as a door opening against the infidels of this country. Just my two cents. I still respect your opinion JP I just do not agree in the least.

This thread should remain about the people of London though. I've heard alot of media outlets focusing on how these attacks will effect Americans. Honestly screw Americans in this situation it should be all about the people of the UK.

[JPFair]

Let me respond to both points.

First,

JP...Do tou think none of this would have happened if Kerry was president?

Yes, it certainly would have because Bush put us in Iraq back in O3 while he was President. If Kerry won the election, we'd still be in Iraq. THERE'S NO WAY OUT!!!

Now, on to Nikis points.

Niki, first you have to realize that the Al Qaeda operatives who carried out the London bombings did so as retalliation for the United States presence in Iraq. That does not, in and of itself, constitute Al-Qaeda being responsible for the reason we invaded Iraq. We went into Afghanistant because of Al-Qaeda, not Iraq. We went into Iraq because of WMD, remember?

The thing that blows my mind about your reasoning JP is you blame our activity there for this attack but maintain that it is not related in any way to Al Queda

Actually, it does have something to do with Al-Qaeda but only because we're in IRaq. Take a moment to realize that Al-Qaeda have not claimed responsibility for it. In fact, a breakout group of Al-Qaeda who call themselves "the secret Al-Qaeda in Europe" have taken responsibility. Also, note that the United States Government have, in the past, considered this group to be completely unconnected to "Al Qaeda" as we know it. They, like many other terrorist groups, have been formed aftere we invaded Iraq. They link themselves to Al-Qaeda to gain islamic support. Just as Al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden were sworn enemies, once we invaded Iraq, Al-Zarqawi began to adhere to the Al-Qaeda doctrine of Anti Americanism. But, ONLY after we invaded Iraq.

. Going to Iraq and battling the terror that was happening there in my view is like letting the school bully see you standing up for yourself with another bully

Terror that was happening there? What terror? You mean the terror of WMD? Well, we all know how that panned out? So, you mean the liberation of Iraq? If it was so terrible over there, why weren't we greeted by hundreds of thousands of supporters waving american flags instead of an insurgency? If we follow your line of thinking by going in and kicking "the bully" out, let's go over to all the other countries with bullies and get rid of them. Let's go invade Iran now that they have a new hardliner in there. Let's invade North Korea, who keeps teasing the United States with his WMD talk. Just because there's a bully in a country, doesn't give us the right to go invade their country just because there's a bully there. The United States is not consitutionally demanded to spread its style of government to anyone in the world.

Saddam was a bully (terrorist)

O.K. Niki. Let's say you're right. Tell me what kind of terrorist act Sadaam ever did against the United States. Did he ever kill a U.S. Citizen in an offensive nature? Did he ever attack the United States? Did he ever launch WMD when we invaded his country? There's a HUGE difference between a bully and a terrorist. Read up on the 9/11 report and you'll see just how starkly diferent the Hussein Doctrine was to Al-Qaeda. In case you don't know already, THEY HATED EACH OTHER!! So, if you use the fact that he gassed his own people as reasons for us to invade, then why not go in there when the gassing was going on? I mean, Bush's father was President, I'm sure he knew the gassing was going on.

and by dealing with him we are lessening the chances of something along the lines of Sept. 11th happening again.

You think so huh? How sad it is that you have fallen into such a false sense of security. I can assure you, Sadaam Hussein poses a MUCH greater threat to this country now than he ever has while he was in power. In fact, he'll pose a much greater threat to this country dead. But, if you ask the Iraqis, they'll want to see him dead. If the Iraqis themselves rose up and kicked him out of power, then there would be no repurcussions against the U.S. But, since WE did it, I can assure you, Hussein poses a much greater threat now than he ever has. Oh, and FYI: The U.S. Department of State maintain a list of "official state sponsors of terrorism'. On that OFFICIAL list, Sadaam Hussein was noted as being incapable of conducting international terrorism against the United States. In fact, the U.S. Dept of State, under George Bush SR, claimed that Husseins only possible links to terror were isolated in the Palestinian anti-dissident activity and had absolutely nothing against the United States. I, too, respect your opinion, however wrong I think it might be. If you could read the CLASSIFIED version of the 9/11 commision, maybe you'd have a different view of Hussein and his ability to wage a terrorist campaign against the United States. Hussein should have been taken out a LONG time ago.

This thread should remain about the people of London though

On this much I agree with. I just wish George Bush would see the same line of thinking. Let's see how quickly he incoroporates what happened in London to the "war on terror" and the need for us to stay in Iraq.

[NikiH]

Ok I don't want to get into an all out debate with you JP we are both adults and have our own points of view, we are both big enough to accept that. However, if London was retaliation for being in Iraq what was Sept. 11th?? And if Saddam was not a terrorist explain to the people of the surrounding countries why their fellow citizens were found in mass graves. I think you are assuming that being a terrorist has anything at all to do with WMD, and it does not. Terrorizing innocent people does not necessarily involve any chemical or biological weapons. And it's been proven over and over that Saddam terrorized not only people of surrounding regions but his own people. Any man capable of some of the acts he commited would not think twice given the opportunity to attack our women and children. I am glad that Bush did not give him the chance regardless of insurgents or not. If on Sept 11th the terrorists had taken over this country and another government came to try to rid us of the terror in our country there would be an insurgency. There are hidden cells of terrorists in our country and that would likely be what the news media would report about. Not those of us happy to see them. There are quite a few happy to see us over there. The media reports it just people who are dead set on us not being over there don't pay attention to that part of the media.

[JPFair]

JP...Do tou think none of this would have happened if Kerry was president?

The more I think about it, the more I have to respond to this post. What kind of question is this, Skinslavar? What exactly are you trying to extract to make a point? Do you even have a point? If so, what is it? This crap would have happened if YOU were President. What the hell does Kerry being President have to do with any of it? Why don't you ask yourself where it all started? You may not know it, but this started during Clintons Presidency. The fact that 9/11 happened during Bush's Presidency means nothing, other than the timing was off. Those hijackers began their training years before 9/11. And, as you know, 9/11 happened during George Bush's Presidency? So, what exactly are you saying when you say "Would any of this happen if Kerry was President"? Are you referring to the London bombs? If so, the answer is yes. Are you referring to the 9/11 attacks? If so, the answer is yes. Are you trying to suggest that I'd rather see John Kerry as our President? If so, you are sadly mistaken my friend.

So, what's your point?

[JPFair]

However, if London was retaliation for being in Iraq what was Sept. 11th?

That's a simple question. Because we support Israel. Plain and Simple!!!! I would have thought you'd have known that by now.

And if Saddam was not a terrorist explain to the people of the surrounding countries why their fellow citizens were found in mass graves. I think you are assuming that being a terrorist has anything at all to do with WMD, and it does not.

I'm only going by the United States Department of States definition of Terrorism and the "Official" list of State Sponsored Terrorist nations, of which, Hussein was not put on it until George Bush became President. As for the neighboring countries citizens, I presume you're referring to Kuwait and Iran. The graves of the Iranians come from the Iraq/Iran war, which the United States supported and armed Iraq for. So, we helped him create those graves. As for Kuwait, we kicked him out of Kuwait. He invaded the country, so we kicked him out. Does that make him a terrorist? No, but it makes him a brutal dictator who needed to be removed from power. In the most catastrophic error of modern warfare, George Bush Sr. failed to take him out when he should have. Lucky for him though, his son came back to finish the job. Niki, I would suggest you read the 9/11 commsiion report, although you won't be as fortunate as me to have read the "classified" report, but you'll certainly get a glimpse inside what the United States considers "terrorsts" vs "Brutal Dictators".

Terrorizing innocent people does not necessarily involve any chemical or biological weapons. And it's been proven over and over that Saddam terrorized not only people of surrounding regions but his own people. Any man capable of some of the acts he commited would not think twice given the opportunity to attack our women and children. I am glad that Bush did not give him the chance regardless of insurgents or not. If on Sept 11th the terrorists had taken over this country and another government came to try to rid us of the terror in our country there would be an insurgency. There are hidden cells of terrorists in our country and that would likely be what the news media would report about. Not those of us happy to see them. There are quite a few happy to see us over there. The media reports it just people who are dead set on us not being over there don't pay attention to that part of the media

The rest of your post is exactly what I'm talking about. You're combining Sadaam Hussein with International Terrorism, something even the United States Government agreed didn't exist, yet you are putting the two together and coming up with reasoning for everything. My only suggestion to you is read as much of the 9/11 commision report as you can. Then we can have a more informed discussion on it, because, with all due respect, I don't think you realize what the United States of America (even George Bush) considers to be International Terrorism. Put it this way, if the U.S. did NOT invade Iraq, do you think there would be an insurgency? Many people think that the "insurgents" are "foreign fighters" who have come to Iraq to fight the Americans. While this may be true to a very small degree, most of these so called "insurgents" are former memebers of the Iraqi army. They simply took off their uniforms when the Americans were coming, and they went home. Now they're back to fight another day, as insurgents. Like it or not, what's going on in Iraq is the direct result of one mans agenda, not a Nations desire to rid the world of terrorism. But, like you said, let's keep this thread on what happened in London, and at the same time, lets hope our politicians do the same thing.

[SkinsLaVar]

JP...Do you think none of this would have happened if Kerry was president?

The more I think about it, the more I have to respond to this post. What kind of question is this, Skinslavar? What exactly are you trying to extract to make a point? Do you even have a point? If so, what is it? This crap would have happened if YOU were President. What the hell does Kerry being President have to do with any of it? Why don't you ask yourself where it all started? You may not know it, but this started during Clintons Presidency. The fact that 9/11 happened during Bush's Presidency means nothing, other than the timing was off. Those hijackers began their training years before 9/11. And, as you know, 9/11 happened during George Bush's Presidency? So, what exactly are you saying when you say "Would any of this happen if Kerry was President"? Are you referring to the London bombs? If so, the answer is yes. Are you referring to the 9/11 attacks? If so, the answer is yes.
So, what's your point?

Dang....JP is getting all political on us....lol I love it

It freaks me out though because I keep thinking it's Joe Gibb's speaking...Gibbs knows his politics.

but anyways....I was referring to the recent UK bombings.

So, what's your point?

Are you trying to suggest that I'd rather see John Kerry as our President? If so, you are sadly mistaken my friend.

Yes, that is the sole reason why I asked you, to see if you were a Kerry supporter.

[JPFair]

SkinsLavar,

No, I am not a Kerry supporter, nor am I a George Bush supporter.

[UK Skins Fan]

If these lunatics think they can beat Britain by pulling this kind of garbage, then they just haven't read their history.

I'm a Brit and, whilst I'm proud of the fact, I don't usually feel the need to display my patriotism - just isn't my way. We've been bombed by idiots before, and we're still standing, because our nation is founded on stronger stuff than these morons can ever imagine. The really sickening thing about these attacks is that they were probably carried out by brainwashed idealits, who actually think they're going to change the world. The people who planted these bombs are just pawns (sick, evil and twisted ones, yes, but pawns nonetheless), manipulated by people far more sinister and calculating. The idiots who did the deed will now find out that they haven't changed a thing, except for writing their own death warrants. Sure, people are a little more anxious, but they feel a lot closer to each other now, and bonded by the grief.

Britain will still be standing when the day of reckoning arrives for the puppet masters of terror, and the US will still be at our shoulder.

So, we grieve for the people we have lost (as America did in 2001) and will not forget them. But I think you'll find that we're ready for the fight.

[JPFair]

UK Skins Fan,

I admire your Patriotism and commend you on your determination and willingness to fight for what your Country is founded upon. I know from living in England briefly, that your Country is one that has been battle tested by terrorists from the IRA and your resolve ultimately prevailed, and will do so in this case. I commend you and your people. In addition, I admire the way your Country has handled this tragedy with honor, dignity, and a determination to fight for what you hold dear. As your Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said "our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world".

My condolances go out to the families and friends of thsoe who died at the hands of these lunatics.

Stay firm, determined, and never lose sight of what your country holds dear.

[welch]

My advice, UK Skins Fan, is to go to work, exactly as you would have done, and to work harder. I went back to work on Sept 13th, and it kept hy head squarely on to have my work around me, and to know that we would not let the Fundamentalists stop New York.

As a colleague put it, "We ought to keep on. And on. They blew up the Trade Center, they killed people we worked with. The best way to fight back is to keep doing what they hate."

*

The worst thing, of course, was to occupy Iraq. The worst thing was to jumble the truth, and to suggest to Americans that Saddam had bombed the WTC and the Pentagon. The war in Iraq began at "ground zero", as President Bush and his mouth-pieces kept repeating.

Yes, we might have decided to overthrow Saddam as a general-purpose good deed, as a way to make the world safe for democracy. That is the underlying argument of the neo-conservatives who set American policy.

For interesting background, read _Present Dangers_, a collection of neo-con essays edited in 2000 by Robert Kagan and William Kristol. In it, they demand that the US overthrow Saddam, but they neglect to mention Al Qaeda, Islamists, Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any terrorists except the Palestinian Hezbollah.

Recall, as I do, that Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz began giving "background" interviews about September 12 to say that the US givernment knew that Saddam had bombed the TRade Center and the Pentagon.

At that time, bin Laden had gathered his forces in Afganistan. Terrorists normally operate in small cells, dispersed, connected like a mesh. Once, then only, and for a short time, AQ clustered.

Would the Fundamentalist terrorism have stopped if bin Laden had been killed? Not likely. The Islamists are not centrally organized, like an Army. No army of jihadis took boats from Calais and stormed London. They won't.

*

Why do I care? Because the US has our entire military tied to Iraq, with almost all of our ten Army divisions either fighting in Iraq, and Afganistan, or recovering from the 2004 campaign, or preparing for the 2006 deployment.

What have we gained? Safety in London? Safety in Iraq for anyone we would care to live with?

No, we cleared Iraq of Saddam, allowing imitation bin Ladens and Shi-ite fundamentalist militias a clear field.

*

Bush gave another speech today, written before the London bombings, and just as flat as the strange talk he gave in Fayettville. Then, he asked for nothing from us, except, perhaps, to think more along party lines.

*

Would London have been bombed if Kerry had been elected? No difference, and an irrelevant question. The Fundamentalist do not care who is President of the US or who is Prime Minister of the UK.

A more answerable question: would the US (and the "coalition of the willing") have invaded Iraq if Vice President Gore had been elected in 2000? No. Only the neo-cons, who advised Bush and Rumsfeld, supported the Iraqi adventure. Consider the cocnlusions of an ordinary military man, Anthony Zinni, head of CentCom before General Franks:

- Saddam was no threat to his neighbors, and I was the guy they would have come to for help

- Saddam's military was just a thin shell, because I had total air superiority over every inch of Iraq. I bombed him whenever he popped his head up. Saddam could not repair or his equipment or re-arm.

- Saddam had no WMD, as best we could tell, because poison gas deteriorates over time. Saddam had not been able to buy new supplies of mustard gas.

- Even if Saddam had had a hidden stash of poison gas, it has to be put into a rocjet round or a cannon shell to be "delivered". CentCom air would have obliterated any convoy taking tanks of gas or warheads to artilery positions.

- Saddam was contained, says General Zinni, using fewer people than go to work in the Pentagon each day. By contrast, consider the forces now involved in Iraq, coming and going. Consider the billions -- $90 billion this year, the same last year, and the year before. Pretty soon, that adds up.

- Saddam was no threat to the US or anyone outside the the southern and central provinces of Iraq.

* To what does it add up? While money and attention went into laying a giant sledge-hammer on Iraq, and while we watched in perplexity (who can put the pieces together again?) the real enemy silently planned another attack on civilians in a western city.

As RIC said a few days ago,

1. Most observers feel that the peace process in Israel has been abandoned.

2. Investment in Iran, a member of the Evil Axes in the words of President Bush? It will not happen.

3. Multilateral diplomacy v. unilateral military actions? Most probably will not happen during this adminstration.

The merit of the article lies, in my view, on the fact that he attempts to address the roots of the problem, not only the "symptoms".

I am very worried.

[UK Skins Fan]

Thanks JP and welch, for your kind comments.

I didn't lose anyone close last Thursday, and I neither live nor work in London. My thoughts are with those who were killed, berieved or wounded.

I don't intend to get into a discussion now about whether Iraq made this more likely, but I suspect that the guilty already had their cause, and only used Iraq and Afghanistan as some way of providing themselves with some moral justification for actions that they were already destined to take.

And now, what appears to be the supreme irony, one that we all feared. The four suspects were all British citizens, and appear to have been suicide bombers.

Their nationality raises an awful lot of questions that we in Britain (and, I suspect, the US) need to address. The next battle in the war on terror may just take place at home, where we must find a way to connect with our own Islamic populations. We cannot send tanks to Leeds, Bradford and Luton - the battle is for hearts and minds, not territory.

[welch]

UK Skins Fan said

We cannot send tanks to Leeds, Bradford and Luton - the battle is for hearts and minds, not territory.

I agree. It would be like using a sledge-hammer to try to kill insects. Like black-flies.

This requires police work, care in what we do, and a constant awareness that the terror bombers want us to use the sledge-hammer because it wins them recruits.

Meanwhile, I think we need to remember tolerance, and dismiss any tendencies in our own societies toward absolute answers, such as "I own the Truth and I'll burn you at the stake if you disagree". Something the American pragmatist philosphers called "fallibility", which is the awareness that we get as close to the truth as we can, we try, we experiment, but we remember that we do not have access to absolutes on this earth. Our answers are always, to some extent, provisional, until we find something that makes more sense, that "works" better.

That is, we can't turn away the Islamic fundamentalists if we turn ourselves into Euro-American mirror images of them. If we impose on ourselves some of the authoritarian restrictions that they want to impose on Islamic societies.

*

It reminds me of a story my son told just before he left for basic training. Their second lietenant asked, "Why did you join the Army?"

One person said, "To kill Arabs".

The lieutenant snapped, "Then you joined the wrong army, recruit. This army is here to protect and defend the American people. All of them. I stopped for gas on the way over, and three middle eastern men were working at the gas station. They came here to work hard and make a better life than they might have had. They are just as worth protecting as the CEO of AT&T. Understand? If you don't, then we can get you out of your contract. Remember your oath? It says 'Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. That comes first."

*

[welch]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00427.html

Muslims Again Confront Terrorist Image

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; 8:57 AM



Twenty-year-old Shahera Akther Islam had an appointment at the dentist's last Thursday morning, reports the Guardian on its page devoted to the victims of the July 7 bombings in London. She has not been heard from since. Shahera embodied multicultural London, according to the Times. A devout Muslim and dedicated shopper, she was "happy in a hijab or high heels."

"Now the family of Shahera Akther Islam, 20, fear that she has been murdered in the name of the religion that she loved by terrorists determined to destroy her very British way of life," said the London daily.

Shahera's apparent death highlighted the toll that the London terror attacks took on British Muslims and on Islam in general. But in the wake of the attacks that killed at least 52 people and wounded 700, commentators in the Muslim online media wonder whether it is right to discuss civilians killed in London without also discussing Muslim civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.

Azzam Al-Tamimi, the head of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London, said that the political context of the bombings "is Britain's entanglement in an oppressive and unjust war against the Afghan and Iraqi peoples." In an Arab TV interview on Thursday, available through the Mideast Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Tamimi said, "The context is Britain's involvement, along with the U.S., in the arrest and persecution of a large group of Muslims. I believe that this context will be taken into consideration starting tomorrow, Allah willing."

In the Arabic daily Al Hayat, columnist Maher Othman speaks for many Arabs when he says the killing of innocent civilians is a crime "whether it is perpetrated by members that are armed with explosives and fanatic extremist beliefs, or committed by countries with armies, strong and modern air and navy weapons along with governments that care less for foreign civilians' safety, especially if they belong to countries with huge oil reserves."

Such statements amount to rationalization of terrorism, says journalist Mona Eltahawy, writing in Asharq Alawsat, a pan-Arab news site based in London.

"Statements from Muslim groups and leaders that we read whenever a terrorist attack is carried out are getting old and repetitive," she says. "I am worried that London will not believe the condemnations that begin with 'Islam is against these kinds of attacks that target innocent people' and end with 'but we must place them in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan and (any other place you think Muslims have suffered an injustice)'. That 'but' will always be our worst enemy."

Abd al-Bari Atwan, editor of the Arabic-language daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, says the linkage is inescapable.

"We are not justifying [the attack]; rather, we are interpreting and analyzing it," he wrote in a column translated by MEMRI. "War is war, and terror is one of its means, whether it is by means of missiles and bombers, or by means of planting bombs in a train or a public bus carrying innocent passengers on their way to work.

"We live in an era in which fear and terror rule us, [terror] which was enforced on us by the stupid American policy that recognizes no dialogue except war and destruction," he wrote.

"We completely identify with the victims of the explosions in London, just as we identify with the family of Egyptian Ambassador [to Baghdad] Ihab Al-Sharif, who was assassinated by a group belonging to the Al-Qa'ida organization. But -- and there is no escape from this 'but' -- wasn't the U.S. the one who forced the Egyptian regime to normalize relations with the illegitimate government in Iraq, and open an embassy there?"

The editors of Azzaman, a Baghdad daily, counter that the Arab world cannot make progress unless it explicitly rejects the terrorists' "culture of hatred."

"Conditions in the Muslim and Arab worlds will never improve until the emergence of a force that clearly and publicly shouts 'enough' in the face of those who have taken Islam hostage and exploit it as a pretext to carry out terrorist acts inside and outside Muslim countries," they wrote on Sunday.

"The London bombs are crimes against humanity and civilization and deserve to be condemned by Muslims to prove to the world that they have got nothing to do with perpetrators of such acts."

It seems that more and more Muslim leaders agree. In an interview with Islam Online, Islamic scholar Yusuf Al-Qaradawi stressed that the actions run counter to the teachings of Islam. "Even at the time of war when state armies battle face to face, it is not permissible to kill women, children, elders, priests, farmers and merchants; people we nowadays call civilians," he said.

Sheik Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, Grand Imam at al-Azhar university in Egypt, rejected the possibility that the attacks were an attempt to press British Prime Minister Tony Blair to withdraw his troops from occupied Iraq.

"This is illogical," he said, "and cannot be the motive for killing innocent civilians."

For these clerics, context is not irrelevant nor it is an excuse. The killing of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine simply cannot justify the killing of Shahera Akther Islam.

[BadgerKing]

As a UK based Skins fan I am grateful for all the words of support from everyone on the boards..bless you

Last week was crazy my Brother in law works in London and uses that very tube line however the day before the atrocity he took that day off! Kind of shakes you up but we will carry on.

London has been bombed throughout history and it survived the best the IRA and the Nazi's could do and it will survive this. What is difficult is cooling the rage and anger you feel. This is a multi-cultural country and even down in parochial Dorset where I live I have muslim, sikh and hindu friends. Holding on to these friendships is one of the keys to us all getting through these terrible days.

This morning the Police has raided some homes and announced they now know who carried out these attacks and it seems they were suicide bombers! Its all too shocking

Still it is good too know who your allies are and I can't imagine a world or a time when the USA, Canada, Australia and the UK are not standing together, shoulder to shoulder

[SkinsLaVar]

This morning the Police has raided some homes and announced they now know who carried out these attacks and it seems they were suicide bombers! Its all too shocking

Of course it was suicide bombers....That isn't shocking to me at all....

[General Failure]

If you take away the whole mass destruction and kill side of it suicide bombers are great people. They only get to do it once and they don't clog up the courts with months and months of high profile strutting by overpriced lawyers.

Yep, if it wasn't for the mass destruction and killing they'd be great people.