BUSH yes or no

[darkboong]

I'm not stating that Islam proper is the problem but the new form of extreme, militant Islam is a problem and shouldn't be ignored.

Islam has little to do with it. The problem is militant extremists, hell even atheist "Pro-Life" folks bomb doctors and clinics. Islam shouldn't even be in the discussion, it's the loonies we should be talking about. The reason why Islam is in the frame is because the folks who set the agenda want it there. The reason why they want Islam in the frame is that they want to manipulate public opinion towards supporting their battle for supremacy over the oil-rich Arab states.

Sadly some of your posts appear to confirm that the malignant PR job is working.

 

[darkboong]

Here I forward an extract that explains why London was bombed and why France is being threatened. It comes from the Jihad Primer. It explains why the real purpose of attacks such as Madrid, New York and London has much to do with an attack on western European values:

SNIP
It's scary stuff.

The problem with that assessment is that it hasn't come from the horse's mouth. The Madrid bombings turned out to be an entity completely divorced from Bin Laden's outfit. The same may well turn out be the case in London. Hell, there was a G8 meeting going on, perfect target for a bunch of psychotic "Anarchists". History shows us that militant anarchists have wreaked carnage and made no public statement claiming responsibility. Hell the Madrid bombings were claimed by a bunch of loonies who had nothing to do with it, same may well be true this time around.

People are leaping to conclusions without a shred of evidence.

 

[Wurm]

People are leaping to conclusions without a shred of evidence.

Bush & Co. spew the words "Al Qaeda", "9/11", and "bin Laden" incessantly and interchangably. No evidence there either, but it worked.

Anything to keep the "War on Turrrur" churning along is good in their book.

 

[davidmc]

"What precisely do the Muslims have to do with the attacks on London, aside from being victims just like the rest of us ? Your post is somewhat reminiscent of the opinion pieces written around the time of the Reichstag Fire... There is no reason whatsoever to make this an issue of religion. The bombings were a criminal act, the perpetrators should be viewed as such rather than religious nutjobs."

This is a complicated question you ask. I'm aware both Islam and Christianity prohibit the killing of innocents. Many Moslems have made it clear the bombers themselves aren't Moslems and I agree with them. Yes, Islam is a peaceful faith and even the movements such as the Nation Of Islam were, all in all, fairly harmless.
But the problem is now that there is a new sub-branch of extreme Islam that has nothing to do with Islam proper but, nevertheless, exists and originates in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria e.t.c. The Government has simultaneously been accepting thousands and thousands of assumed asylum seekers from these very countries. We simply don't know, therefore, how many of these immigrants hold extremist views or may pose a threat.
I'm not stating that Islam proper is the problem but the new form of extreme, militant Islam is a problem and shouldn't be ignored.

Agree w/ you here. Why is there no outrage displayed by the Muslim communities inre: "The London Bombings" I say deport thier arses. They live & prosper in the U.K. & when there is an opportunity to denounce these criminal act's, they just sit there silently.

 

[ryan_velo.]

"War on turrur" that's funny

 

[davidmc]

Re: BUSH yes or no


--- ------------- -------------- ------------------
--- ---------- -------------------------
--- -- ------- ------------------------
--- ---- ----- -------- ----------------
--- ------ ---------------------- -----
--- -------- --------------------- -----
--- --------- ------------------- -------
--- ---------- ----------- --------------
--- ----------- -------------------------
--- ------------ -----------------------------

 

[ryan_velo.]

What seems to be the problem Dave?!?

 

[ryan_velo.]

Oh never mind, I didn't see the "bush yes or no"

 

[Carrera]

Let's just say I find the reaction over here astounding. I knew the Government would try and white wash the current situation but maybe I didn't expect the U.K. public to be so wishy washy. What I keep hearing in the media is this is nothing to do with Islamic groups and they keep repeating stuff about the I.R.A.
Above all, the media is stressing the fact one or two Moslems were caught up amongst the victims so the logical conclusion they draw (Ken Livingstone included) is that the terrorists attacks are aimed at Moslems too.
This is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Al Quaida made a specific warning for Moslems within U.S. cities or Europe to avoid skyscraper buildings, trains and planes e.t.c. The message implied any Moslems who didn't heed the warning would put themselves at risk. But they were most definitely not a specific target - Europeans and Americans are. Period.
As for the I.R.A., this isn't the same as the I.R.A. at all. The I.R.A. usually give warnings before bombs go off and don't go in for mass carnage on the scale of 9/11, the Nordost Moscow theatre attack, Belslan and Madrid.
So far. it would seem there has been no real determination to root out these radical groups that have gradually based themselves in major cities over here. Neither has there been any association whatsoever between the attacks and radical Islam, nor any desire to shut down militant Islamic Jihadist newspapers.
All people seem to be worried about is not being seen as racist by confronting a serious problem head on.
Our leaders seem to have the back bones of a jellyfish.

Agree w/ you here. Why is there no outrage displayed by the Muslim communities inre: "The London Bombings" I say deport thier arses. They live & prosper in the U.K. & when there is an opportunity to denounce these criminal act's, they just sit there silently.

 

[darkboong]

Agree w/ you here. Why is there no outrage displayed by the Muslim communities inre: "The London Bombings" I say deport thier arses. They live & prosper in the U.K. & when there is an opportunity to denounce these criminal act's, they just sit there silently.

There is a perfectly simple reason why "they just sit there silently". Your press is not reporting their outrage. I can assure you that the muslims have been affected just the same as the rest of us over here in the UK. I have not seen any evidence or reason to treat them any differently from any other UK citizen.

 

[darkboong]

Above all, the media is stressing the fact one or two Moslems were caught up amongst the victims so the logical conclusion they draw (Ken Livingstone included) is that the terrorists attacks are aimed at Moslems too.

It is pretty clear to me that the attacks were not discriminating the victims on the basis of religion. If a place of worship had been bombed then perhaps I might conclude that the terrorists were discriminating on the basis of religion.

This is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Al Quaida made a specific warning for Moslems within U.S. cities or Europe to avoid skyscraper buildings, trains and planes e.t.c. The message implied any Moslems who didn't heed the warning would put themselves at risk. But they were most definitely not a specific target - Europeans and Americans are. Period.

When precisely was that message issued, and by whom ?

At present that factoid is entirely circumstantial.

So far. it would seem there has been no real determination to root out these radical groups that have gradually based themselves in major cities over here.

It is long, hard work.

Neither has there been any association whatsoever between the attacks and radical Islam, nor any desire to shut down militant Islamic Jihadist newspapers.

Why should there be any association between the attacks nad radical Islam ? The criminal investigation has barely started. For all we know it could be the work of Tim McVeigh wannabees. As for shutting down those papers, unlikely to work in this day and age. If you confiscate them or work backwards from the distribution you will validate the publication in the eyes of many disgruntled folks. If you look for the source of the publication and shut it down that won't work too well either. Printing is easily done these days, it would be virtually impossible for the kings men to confiscate and destroy every press in the village these days.

All people seem to be worried about is not being seen as racist by confronting a serious problem head on.

With respect, you can't tackle the root cause of the attacks until you know who carried them out and why. If you take action without proper investigation then you are carrying out a witch hunt. I ain't going to sit back and watch a witch hunt tear this country apart, I suggest you extinguish that torch and put down that pitchfork before I make you eat them.

Our leaders seem to have the back bones of a jellyfish.

Jellyfish don't have backbones. Cuttlefish perhaps ?

 

[fabrice]

In the end, Georgey Boy and, let's say, Bin Laden have one major thing in common: They both share the belief that the world would be a better place if everybody was like them.
Opposing one to the other is giving them precisely what they want.
By turning our backs to multiculturalism, by shutting up the borders, we are just playing their game and giving them exactly what they want as both thrive on destabilising out society through fear and/or hatred of the other.
Their worst nightmare is precisely a society were all faiths, colours, beliefs, can work together.
It's a bit like bike shops where they'll patronise you if you ride a given type of bike rather than the one they sell.
The Muslim Council was, thankfully, VERY PROMPT at condemning the attacks.
But they needn't have been.
Seeing the issue as a Islam against the rest of the world problem is a bit like seing the Northern Ireland problems in terms of religious conflicts as associating Islam with the attacks is a bit like claiming that the IRA (real or otherwise) impersonated core values of the Catholicism: Such claims are bordering on lunacy.
If there is a conflict, it is that of single thought fascists against the rest. lso, we must be careful that we do not end up rejecting a given group of our society because atrocities are being commited in their name.
Moslems have been killed in the attacks because Al-Quaeda or whoever did this wasn't trying to avoid hitting Moslems, nor were they trying to hit one given social, religious or ethnic group. This conflict isn't about promoting Islam but about attempting to destroy freedom and diversity as core values of our society (I'm, of course, not using the word "freedom" in the Dubya sense of the term...)
Many would have us believe that the whole world can be grasped in terms of binary equations: Bush or Kerry, Nuclear energy or a candle, Carbon frame or penny-farthing; the same way, voting Liberal is voting Torry, criticising Bush makes you the ennemy of freedom and democracy (whatever that means...), steel frame bicycles are... well, penny-farthings and Moslem groups are terrorists.
Things are often much, MUCH more complex than that.
Avoiding to condemn Moslem groups is not about being "wishy-washy" or lacking courage, but about accepting the complexity of the issues raised by a conflict which is now being taken to our very streets and avoiding that more innocents end up being the victims of a witch hunt as a result of a monstuous snow ball effect.

 

[Wurm]

...both thrive on destabilising out society through fear and/or hatred of the other.


If there is a conflict, it is that of single thought fascists against the rest.

Exactly. Bush and bin Laden need each other to further one another's causes. So it's no mystery as to why OBL hasn't been "caught".

 

[Carrera]

The problem with multiculturalism is history has demonstrated it simply doesn't work. People who promote the multicultural agenda have been pushing forward a doctrine that claims we'll be all better off if we allow unlimited immigration and no single ethnic majority (which is being proposed in Europe at present).
Few people are aware the Romans also adopted multiculturalism in a big way and to the point their entire society was transformed between, say, 100 B.C. to 400 A.D. That is, by 400 A.D. the Romans themselves formed a minority ethnic group and were outnumbered by Gauls, Jews, Arabs and Germans. To quote from one of book written by the American academic Robert Payne:
"So many races crowded into Rome that one might have been hard put to find a Roman face in a given assembly."
American academics have now finally started to accept the fact that multiculturalism became a destabilising factor in society and have challenged the old sixties view of history. It is now recognised that when Germanic tribes such as the Vandals and Huns finally invaded Rome, the ethnic groups who formed part of the Roman army per se took the side of the invaders. This was a social structure that had no cohesion and became totally divided, especially over religion.
Actual academic studies carried out in the U.S. have produced solid evidence that multicultural societies are less effective than non- multi-ethnic societies. Multiculturalism has been shown to give rise to racism, distrust and religious division within societies that adopt it. The politicians who promote the multicultural agenda are, in my opinion, ignorant of the historical facts surrounding the doctrine but they are rarely challenged.

In the end, Georgey Boy and, let's say, Bin Laden have one major thing in common: They both share the belief that the world would be a better place if everybody was like them.
Opposing one to the other is giving them precisely what they want.
By turning our backs to multiculturalism, by shutting up the borders, we are just playing their game and giving them exactly what they want as both thrive on destabilising out society through fear and/or hatred of the other.
Their worst nightmare is precisely a society were all faiths, colours, beliefs, can work together.
It's a bit like bike shops where they'll patronise you if you ride a given type of bike rather than the one they sell.
The Muslim Council was, thankfully, VERY PROMPT at condemning the attacks.
But they needn't have been.
Seeing the issue as a Islam against the rest of the world problem is a bit like seing the Northern Ireland problems in terms of religious conflicts as associating Islam with the attacks is a bit like claiming that the IRA (real or otherwise) impersonated core values of the Catholicism: Such claims are bordering on lunacy.
If there is a conflict, it is that of single thought fascists against the rest. lso, we must be careful that we do not end up rejecting a given group of our society because atrocities are being commited in their name.
Moslems have been killed in the attacks because Al-Quaeda or whoever did this wasn't trying to avoid hitting Moslems, nor were they trying to hit one given social, religious or ethnic group. This conflict isn't about promoting Islam but about attempting to destroy freedom and diversity as core values of our society (I'm, of course, not using the word "freedom" in the Dubya sense of the term...)
Many would have us believe that the whole world can be grasped in terms of binary equations: Bush or Kerry, Nuclear energy or a candle, Carbon frame or penny-farthing; the same way, voting Liberal is voting Torry, criticising Bush makes you the ennemy of freedom and democracy (whatever that means...), steel frame bicycles are... well, penny-farthings and Moslem groups are terrorists.
Things are often much, MUCH more complex than that.
Avoiding to condemn Moslem groups is not about being "wishy-washy" or lacking courage, but about accepting the complexity of the issues raised by a conflict which is now being taken to our very streets and avoiding that more innocents end up being the victims of a witch hunt as a result of a monstuous snow ball effect.

 

[Carrera]

"Their worst nightmare is precisely a society were all faiths, colours, beliefs, can work together."

But the truth is they don't work together in the way politicians claim. Take Holland: Before the Dutch were pushed into accepting multiculturalism, this was a peaceful tolerant society that had its own culture and value system. Now, Holland is far more divided and many Dutch are leaving the country. Again, Islamic extremism has been a factor. Threats have been made against Dutch politicians who opppose the establishment of Islam within Holland and there has been division since a Dutch theatre producer was assassinated for criticizing the religion. Holland is no longer a place where people have the same freedom to express their views.
Why should an already tolerant, liberal, free society import intolerance?

In the end, Georgey Boy and, let's say, Bin Laden have one major thing in common: They both share the belief that the world would be a better place if everybody was like them.
Opposing one to the other is giving them precisely what they want.
By turning our backs to multiculturalism, by shutting up the borders, we are just playing their game and giving them exactly what they want as both thrive on destabilising out society through fear and/or hatred of the other.
Their worst nightmare is precisely a society were all faiths, colours, beliefs, can work together.
It's a bit like bike shops where they'll patronise you if you ride a given type of bike rather than the one they sell.
The Muslim Council was, thankfully, VERY PROMPT at condemning the attacks.
But they needn't have been.
Seeing the issue as a Islam against the rest of the world problem is a bit like seing the Northern Ireland problems in terms of religious conflicts as associating Islam with the attacks is a bit like claiming that the IRA (real or otherwise) impersonated core values of the Catholicism: Such claims are bordering on lunacy.
If there is a conflict, it is that of single thought fascists against the rest. lso, we must be careful that we do not end up rejecting a given group of our society because atrocities are being commited in their name.
Moslems have been killed in the attacks because Al-Quaeda or whoever did this wasn't trying to avoid hitting Moslems, nor were they trying to hit one given social, religious or ethnic group. This conflict isn't about promoting Islam but about attempting to destroy freedom and diversity as core values of our society (I'm, of course, not using the word "freedom" in the Dubya sense of the term...)
Many would have us believe that the whole world can be grasped in terms of binary equations: Bush or Kerry, Nuclear energy or a candle, Carbon frame or penny-farthing; the same way, voting Liberal is voting Torry, criticising Bush makes you the ennemy of freedom and democracy (whatever that means...), steel frame bicycles are... well, penny-farthings and Moslem groups are terrorists.
Things are often much, MUCH more complex than that.
Avoiding to condemn Moslem groups is not about being "wishy-washy" or lacking courage, but about accepting the complexity of the issues raised by a conflict which is now being taken to our very streets and avoiding that more innocents end up being the victims of a witch hunt as a result of a monstuous snow ball effect.

 

[Carrera]

"When precisely was that message issued, and by whom ?"

This was a broadcast given by Bin Laden sometime after 9/11. It stated Moslems should avoid high-rise buildings and inner cities. The argument you're putting forward here is kind of like saying Americans weren't the target of 9/11 because there happened to be other nationalities of people working in the twin towers. Let's be clear here: The 9/ll attacks were carried out in the name of an extreme branch of Islam in the same way as London and Madrid.
Likewise the people who took hostages in the theatre at Moscow burst into the building with machine guns, explosives and holy books. Their motivation was a crusade against the so-called western cross-bearers.
As for the newspapers that promote extremism and violence, how come the Government can find the backbone to make it illegal to criticize religion or crack some kind of religious joke, yet it can't find the courage to close down these extremist publications? This is what Putin means by stating there are double standards at work.

It is pretty clear to me that the attacks were not discriminating the victims on the basis of religion. If a place of worship had been bombed then perhaps I might conclude that the terrorists were discriminating on the basis of religion.



When precisely was that message issued, and by whom ?

At present that factoid is entirely circumstantial.



It is long, hard work.



Why should there be any association between the attacks nad radical Islam ? The criminal investigation has barely started. For all we know it could be the work of Tim McVeigh wannabees. As for shutting down those papers, unlikely to work in this day and age. If you confiscate them or work backwards from the distribution you will validate the publication in the eyes of many disgruntled folks. If you look for the source of the publication and shut it down that won't work too well either. Printing is easily done these days, it would be virtually impossible for the kings men to confiscate and destroy every press in the village these days.



With respect, you can't tackle the root cause of the attacks until you know who carried them out and why. If you take action without proper investigation then you are carrying out a witch hunt. I ain't going to sit back and watch a witch hunt tear this country apart, I suggest you extinguish that torch and put down that pitchfork before I make you eat them.



Jellyfish don't have backbones. Cuttlefish perhaps ?

 

[darkboong]

This was a broadcast given by Bin Laden sometime after 9/11. It stated Moslems should avoid high-rise buildings and inner cities.

Seems like sound advice to me, being a country bumpkin by nature.

The argument you're putting forward here is kind of like saying Americans weren't the target of 9/11 because there happened to be other nationalities of people working in the twin towers.

No that is not my argument at all, no idea how you arrived at that conclusion if you actually read my post.

Let's be clear here: The 9/ll attacks were carried out in the name of an extreme branch of Islam in the same way as London and Madrid.

Let's be clear here: There is no evidence for that at all at the present time. There is plenty of circumstantial "evidence" presented by pundits and repeated by your good self. Let the criminal investigation take it's course then pass comment on who did it and why.

 

[darkboong]

Agree w/ you here. Why is there no outrage displayed by the Muslim communities inre: "The London Bombings" I say deport thier arses. They live & prosper in the U.K. & when there is an opportunity to denounce these criminal act's, they just sit there silently.

BTW : When are you going to start leaping up and down to have Posada Carilles extradited from the US to face trial for terrorism and mass murder ?

 

[davidmc]

BTW : When are you going to start leaping up and down to have Posada Carilles extradited from the US to face trial for terrorism and mass murder ?

Extradicted to where He, allegedly, antagonized Cuba (we have a continual [outdated] embargo on them) & he knows too much about our CIA to be let out of the country. Many "right winger's", over here, would, undoubtedly; go to prison if he were to talk to "outside" authorities. Incidentally, I don't have any muslim friends because they won't even talk to me. They are insular, & if you read some of thier teaching's, it instruct's them to look down on all non-muslim's. What do you have to say about that

 

[EoinC]

...Incidentally, I don't have any muslim friends because they won't even talk to me. They are insular, & if you read some of thier teaching's, it instruct's them to look down on all non-muslim's. What do you have to say about that

I'm not Muslim, I live and work in a predominantly Muslim Country (Malaysia) and have plenty of Muslim friends who talk to me. I work with them, I eat with them, I go to their houses, I even ride and race with them. That doesn't seem very insular to me. With the Muslims in your area, are you sure that their apparent insularity is not down to (in their view) them living in an insular society which does not accept them as openly as they might?