Multiple Bomb Blasts in London

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Maybe you're forgetting the sequence of events.
For one, the Kosovars were not being "slaughtered" they were being expelled.
But remember, they were not being expelled until after NATO started bombing, because that was the Milesovic threat.

well your wrong

heres the history lesson for you, of course maybe 2000 deaths isnt a slaughter in your eyes....

Between March 1998 and March 1999, before NATO governments decided upon military action, over 2000 people were killed as a result of the Serb government's policies in Kosovo.

During the summer of 1998, a quarter of a million Kosovar Albanians were forced from their homes as their houses, villages and crops were destroyed.

In January 1999, evidence was discovered, by a United Nations humanitarian team, of the massacre of over 40 people in the village of Racak.

http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Are you trying to change the subject Earthman?
Puleeze.

nope just drawing a parallel.
What you said about Sadam holding things together could be equally said of Breznev with regard to the USSR and it's satelites.
The only good thing was the latter imploded from within and was allowed to do so as the rolling stone was gathering at such a pace( with the exception of the far east of course)

If you wanna talk Bosnia, lets do it, but are you sure you didn't mean Kosovo?

Nah I meant Bosnia and specefically Bill's facilitations

But yeah , see'ing as theres all sorts by some flying around in this thread saying the yankee's and Brits deserve what they get from the terrorists,I do wonder where the oil was there and and as you mention it, in kosova either-quid pro quo like.
While we are here milosevic was frequently very nasty to muslims (for example) before the U.S arranged with other western democracies to save them.
No kudus for that of course,Clinton had hardly left his presidency more than a few months when the Al Queda boys bombed the towers-question is why didnt they bomb milosevic,it would have been easier... and more justified


The real thing I'd like to get at here though is the lack of Validity in the comparison between what democratically elected governments do(regardless of ones views on the rights/wrongs of same) and what faceless un mandated terrorists do?

dathi1

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B4A25237-A823-4F53-B522-D84CDD322374.htm

Read the paragraph by the furniture seller in Baghdad.....nail on the head.

I think this is also apt by raed in the middle:
Either believe in the bu**** of "evil terrorist who hate freedom": get stuck in the reactionary and violent cycle of US foreign policy, then attack and occupy more countries and wait for another 5 years to see whether more attacks will target your cities or not.

Or believe in Zapatero's pragmatic and rational solution (like the Italian government's decision today): fix the mess you caused in our part of the world and pull out your troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, apologize for the illegal wars that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people and bring the war criminals to justice, and pay compensation to Iraq and Iraqis.

Rock Climber

dathi1 wrote:

fix the mess you caused in our part of the world and pull out your troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, apologize for the illegal wars that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people and bring the war criminals to justice, and pay compensation to Iraq and Iraqis.

And kneel down begging forgiveness from allah whilst praising the blessed bombers for doing his good work in New York and collecting money for the safe return of the blessed and good sadam to power , the world wide defeat of the infidel, the covering up of all but the eyes on your women and the withdrawal of any of their western corrupt and immoral human and education rights...

(I thought I'd finish that statement for posterity)

Most right thinking muslim clerics the world over will say that Allah wouldnt condone what went on yesterday in London.

uberwolf

Rock Climber wrote:

And kneel down begging forgiveness from allah whilst praising the blessed bombers for doing his good work in New York and collecting money for the safe return of the blessed and good sadam to power , the world wide defeat of the infidel, the covering up of all but the eyes on your women and the withdrawal of any of their western corrupt and immoral human and education rights...

(I thought I'd finish that statement for posterity)

Most right thinking muslim clerics the world over will say that Allah wouldnt condone what went on yesterday in London.

Daithí1 didn't bring religion into it.

I've a frightfully simple perspective on this. Your implication is related to a comment earlier about the media coverage. That this is an act of peacetime barbarity by religious nut jobs. Whilst it will probably transpire to be some code of religious nut job, that doesn't go any where near justifying your perspective of Muslim culture and the politics that have created the current situ.

Many nights during WWII resulted in far greater casualties to London civilians. Yesterday was an act of war, 9-11 was an act of war. Unfortunately it is easy to forget that those wars were ongoing, the acts simply shifted the fronts briefly.

In reality the british are perceived as aggressors by the inhabitants and sympathisers of several countries at the moment. The British are at war, the reality of these wars wasn't apparent to many british people. Indeed it remains inapparent, to most.

That is not to be confused for me condoning either yesterday or 9-11, but neither do I condone the war being fought in Iraq. It is far too convenient for Bush, Blair, etc to distance 'terrorist acts' from aggressive and far more deadly acts their decisions have resulted in.

Rock Climber

uberwolf wrote:

Daithí1 didn't bring religion into it.

He didnt but alqueda do all the time.

I've a frightfully simple perspective on this. Your implication is related to a comment earlier about the media coverage. That this is an act of peacetime barbarity by religious nut jobs. Whilst it will probably transpire to be some code of religious nut job, that doesn't go any where near justifying your perspective of Muslim culture and the politics that have created the current situ.

I was referring very simply to the mindset and goals of Bin laden and his followers which, you'll appreciate is very at odds with the likes of the the muslim council of GB or even Iran and syria

Many nights during WWII resulted in far greater casualties to London civilians. Yesterday was an act of war, 9-11 was an act of war. Unfortunately it is easy to forget that those wars were ongoing, the acts simply shifted the fronts briefly.

I'd prefer the phrase act of terrorism.War is for nations in my view.

That is not to be confused for me condoning either yesterday or 9-11, but neither do I condone the war being fought in Iraq. It is far too convenient for Bush, Blair, etc to distance 'terrorist acts' from aggressive and far more deadly acts their decisions have resulted in.

I know you don't condone it,few do.
But Alqueda, make no mistake are using the US and the UK too, goading them with the likes of yesterday.
Thats why we had 9-11 in the first place because they are just as willing to thrive on what Bush does in reaction as the likes of Bush is to use Alqueda's activities as a justification for his stance.

It's an awfull reflection on what us humans are capable of unfortunately ,I doubt if we will ever have the world below a certain level of war and terrorism-its a disease in my opinion and the cure is more elusive than the cold

uberwolf

Rock Climber wrote:

I'd prefer the phrase act of terrorism.War is for nations in my view.

yeah, that is troubling my simple perspective alright. But I don't think you always get to pick who you fight against.

Nations may be only one way of dividing the worlds peoples, geopolitical barriers are often less in grained than religious ones. The British Army on behalf of the British state, acting for the interests of the British subjects, are at war with the Iraqi. Why should that war only be carried out on the streets of Baghdad?

Essey

dathi1 wrote:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B4A25237-A823-4F53-B522-D84CDD322374.htm

Or believe in Zapatero's pragmatic and rational solution (like the Italian government's decision today): fix the mess you caused in our part of the world and pull out your troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, apologize for the illegal wars that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people and bring the war criminals to justice, and pay compensation to Iraq and Iraqis.

I hope that this isn't your "logical/rational" solution? For US/UK troops to pull out of Iraq now the country would descend into complete chaos. The war on Afghanistan was not an illegal war - the Taliban admitted harbored a confessed killer (he admitted Cole/Kenya situations) and refused to hand him over when asked politely. The US has a right to defend itself and that includes challenging governments who harbor terrorists against the state. The war on Iraq (well I disagree with many here) I believe that Saddam was a war criminal and should have been expelled in '91 - but we'll have to agree to differ on this one. Democracy offers Muslims/Arabs/humans a platform for dialogue not suicide bombs, a voice in how their countries should be run (if you want clerics - then vote for them), the west (that includes Ireland) pays for its oil - if you don't like the price or how the proceeds of this money is being spent - then vote in someone who will allocate those funds more fairly (not build personal palaces with these funds). There is really no earthly reason why Bush wants to stay in Iraq (holy god I cant believe she is saying that!!) But honestly! Iraq in a pain in the ass! Oil?? Do we need it? Sure! Do Arab countries need us to buy it? Sure! Are we paying enough for it - well how much is a litre of petrol right now - its like everything supply/demand and OPEC. Israel? oh boy -Moses was there, Jesus was the at some point the Arabs dropped in and then the UK were there - Jews came back after WW2 - UK leaves - Jews win over Palestinians and now all this for a country the size of Dublin. How will Tom Cruise ever explain this to the martians when they arrive?

Rock Climber

uberwolf wrote:

The British Army on behalf of the British state, acting for the interests of the British subjects, are at war with the Iraqi.

Are they though,they are at war with some Iraqi's and an awfull lot of foreign insurgents with alqueda sponsorship,I'd have thought.

Why should that war only be carried out on the streets of Baghdad?

What would trouble me about that perspective is the simple fact that we can throw out our leaders when they do wrong in our eyes[the voters](Spain being the ultimate example)
No such sanction is open in the case of the terrorist,he can do what he likes.
In that site I lined to above for instance, the AQ aims are to set up by force if necessary their own version of society.

Now people can shout me down if they like, but given a choice between a despot that I can vote out and a despot that thinks they have the god given right to lord over me and take away the rights I hold dear, then I'll take the one I can vote out and justice will eventually come in the ballot box.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

Now people can shout me down if they like, but given a choice between a despot that I can vote out and a despot that thinks they have the god given right to lord over me and take away the rights I hold dear, then I'll take the one I can vote out and justice will eventually come in the ballot box.

Does that include the 'despot' that the majority of the people did not vote for?

KnowItAll

Rew wrote:

I hope your just a troll but...

Whats a troll?

KnowItAll

therecklessone wrote:

Its taken a long time to come, but welcome to my ignore list.

I thought we were the bestest of friends!

dathi1

Most right thinking muslim clerics the world over will say that Allah wouldnt condone what went on yesterday in London.

They already have.....including Arab governments and even Hammas and Hizbollah. http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050708/2005070819.html
http://www.juancole.com/

Wheely

Essey wrote:

I hope that this isn't your "logical/rational" solution?

Israel? oh boy -Moses was there, Jesus was the at some point the Arabs dropped in and then the UK were there - Jews came back after WW2 - UK leaves - Jews win over Palestinians and now all this for a country the size of Dublin. How will Tom Cruise ever explain this to the martians when they arrive?

Wow!!!! Way to go and show him up on the logical/rational solution front!!! I dont think Iv ever heard such a succint, learned and downright brilliant analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict! Im not one of those that thinks that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

jman0

Nuttzz wrote:

well your wrong
heres the history lesson for you, of course maybe 2000 deaths isnt a slaughter in your eyes....http://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm

Your source is one of the antagonists of the war, how unbecoming.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1877
NATO didn't start the war for any humanitarian reasons, they did it because they wanted to force Milsovec to signup to the Rambouille accords.
Although the truth of some of that is a bit dubious:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1901
You (and NATO) don't seem to have a problem with the mass explusions of all the other people from Kosovar that took place after the war.
How humanitarian is that?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1899

jman0, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were away for the weekend...
But really what was in Nato's mind at the time,though they didnt know the half of it was the likes of this

Last night on the news a video was shown of milosevic's troops shooting young men in a line up on a country road, there were about 20 of them.
The video is part of the evidence at his trial

Your source is one of the antagonists of the war, how unbecoming.

Theres plenty more sources of what would be described as well not pretty.
Your line seems to suggest you are either doubting that these things went on, or that the muslims had nothing to thank clinton for...

This brings me back to my question as regards the bona fidé's of the London bombers... why didn't they blow up the buses and trains in belgrade???
Clearly their concern for their muslim brothers is conditional...
I would suggest that they didnt because their concern is not for their muslim brethern,its just pure hate of the west full stop.

jman0

Iraqis blame U.S. and Britain over London bombings

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-07-10T164541Z_01_MOL060135_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN-IRAQ.xml

I concur and there's no mention of some islamofascist Al-Q conspiracy agenda here.
It is retaliation.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

its just pure hate of the west full stop.

Hate is neither an explanation nor a cause. Its a symptom.

Why do these people hate the west enough, now, to do these things, when they didn't hate the west enough (say) 10 years ago to do so? Or 20 years, if you disagree with my arbitrary timeframe.

Note: I'm not suggesting that the West is to blame...I'm just suggesting that the use of "they hate us / our freedom / our <insert something we hold hear>" is really a non-answer. In my book its a response to a question rather than an answer, and I must say I'm somewhat surprised to see you use it Earthman.

jc

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Your source is one of the antagonists of the war, how unbecoming.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1877

why is it unbecoming? because you dont like it, or it doesnt agree with your view?

jman0 wrote:

NATO didn't start the war for any humanitarian reasons, they did it because they wanted to force Milsovec to signup to the Rambouille accords.
Although the truth of some of that is a bit dubious:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1901

They stopped the slaughter, is that a bad thing?

jman0 wrote:

You (and NATO) don't seem to have a problem with the mass explusions of all the other people from Kosovar that took place after the war.
How humanitarian is that?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1899

How do you know what my opinions are??
I think the troops on the ground are doing a good job
http://www.army.ie/pr/an_cosantoir_articles/an_cosantoir_a_day_to_remember.htm

jman0

jman0 wrote:

It is retaliation.

You havent addressed my question, why didnt they retalliate against milosevic?
A few foreign insurgents in Belgrade by their logic would have sorted him out with a few suicide bombs surely? It was left to the west to sort him out and there were no congratulatory messages from Bin Laden.
They didnt suicide bomb Sadam either when he was massacring their co religionists.

Or is it like animal farm and in the eyes of Bin Laden some muslims are more equal than others?

AlQueda are clever and manipulative hypocrites to be frank whose secret best friend is any politician in the west who gives them the tit for tat that they want to further their agenda.That agenda is certainly not true islam which means peace.

bonkey wrote:

Note: I'm not suggesting that the West is to blame...I'm just suggesting that the use of "they hate us / our freedom / our <insert something we hold hear>" is really a non-answer. In my book its a response to a question rather than an answer, and I must say I'm somewhat surprised to see you use it Earthman.
jc

Well my logic is simple,if its those that kill people of their faith that is uppermost in their mind, why didnt they go for milosevic or Sadam?
It's clear what they want from most descriptions of their agenda that I've read and thats a 100% extreme their kind of islamic world.
Thus given that they didnt attack Belgrade with the same venom as London or New York allied with the amount of their own that they have killed in Iraq simply for the collaboration crime suggests to me that they care more about attacking the pillars of the west to further their agenda than they do protecting/nurturing their islamic brothers.


Bush of course is as culpable on the other side in using AlQueda's reaction first to shore up his own political support and second using the fear to garner support for his own agenda's.


Would that provide some background to my thinking Bonkey?

pete

Earthman wrote:

Thus given that they didnt attack Belgrade with the same venom as London or New York allied with the amount of their own that they have killed in Iraq simply for the collaboration crime suggests to me that they care more about attacking the pillars of the west to further their agenda than they do protecting/nurturing their islamic brothers.

Since neither Yugoslavia nor Iraq were "occupying" Saudi Arabia it's not hard to see why they wouldn't have been top of bin laden's hitlist.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

You havent addressed my question, why didnt they retalliate against milosevic?
Well my logic is simple,if its those that kill people of their faith that is uppermost in their mind, why didnt they go for milosevic or Sadam?
It's clear what they want from most descriptions of their agenda that I've read and thats a 100% extreme their kind of islamic world.
Thus given that they didnt attack Belgrade with the same venom as London or New York allied with the amount of their own that they have killed in Iraq simply for the collaboration crime suggests to me that they care more about attacking the pillars of the west to further their agenda than they do protecting/nurturing their islamic brothers.

Milovevic was/is not killing muslims in the same numbers as USA/UK are at present, and for the last 12 years under heinous Sanctions.
Also, USA is a particular taget because they are infidels in the land of Mecca.
Milosovic was nowhere near Mecca.
Also Al-Q offered to wage war against Saddam back in 91, the Saudi royal family turned them down.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Milovevic was/is not killing muslims in the same numbers as USA/UK are at present,

If the insurgents continue the way they are going they may have killed more than milosevic

and for the last 12 years under heinous Sanctions.

Yeah they let Sadam ride the sanctions system to the detriment of his citizens.OBL let him away with that because it suited OBL's agenda

Also, USA is a particular taget because they are infidels in the land of Mecca.
Milosovic was nowhere near Mecca.

They have a few bases there, that mitigates against fighting against the oppression of muslims elsewhere? It seems to me, that this guy OBL and his followers are see through,they only attack when it suits their agenda.
They were well able to anticipate the U.S reaction to something like 9-11 and they knew the government there was by then filled with neo cons.
What better backdrop could they have had to furthering their own agenda.

Also Al-Q offered to wage war against Saddam back in 91, the Saudi royal family turned them down.

When did he ever have to get their permission? I doubt you are suggesting that they gave it for the London bombs?

pete wrote:

Since neither Yugoslavia nor Iraq were "occupying" Saudi Arabia it's not hard to see why they wouldn't have been top of bin laden's hitlist.

It is hard to see.
Unless , one separates the wood from the tree's here.
OBL ignored his brethren left to suffer at the hands of milosevic and saddam because it didnt suit his agenda.

Said agenda is in heavenly circumstances now,It couldnt have better circumstances in which to grow.I'd call that a well laid out plan bearing more fruit than ever he could have hoped.His opponents did exactly and more than he had hoped and yeah they are culpable for that,they've obliterated the higher moral ground they were on immediately post 9-11, the ground that gave them the large international support to go after the terror camps.

Of course now we know they made a mess of it probably because the bigger agenda was more important than the justice.

Now guys,I'm just putting foward a view here,I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Hobbes

Earthman wrote:

OBL let him away with that because it suited OBL's agenda

Sorry thats wrong. He let him get away with it because he is a wanted man in Iraq and it is a little bit harder to wage terrorism when even casual dissent is liable to get you killed.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Yeah they let Sadam ride the sanctions system to the detriment of his citizens.OBL let him away with that because it suited OBL's agenda.

I dunno, but i think Al-Q had in motion other plans during this peroid, like Somalia and Afghanistan/Taliban and establishing their global reach.
Besides the Sanctions regime was not administered by Saddam, but by the UN Security Council, but mostly USA in reality. Saddam was powerless to stop them.

Earthman wrote:

When did he ever have to get their permission?

I believe the point was to have Al-Q in a postion in SA where they were a credible party of conflict, Jihadists that woud be openly supported by other Arab nations, just like they were in Afghanistan during the Jihad to kick the Russians out.

Von

Earthman wrote:

Well my logic is simple,if its those that kill people of their faith that is uppermost in their mind, why didnt they go for milosevic or Sadam?
It's clear what they want from most descriptions of their agenda that I've read and thats a 100% extreme their kind of islamic world.
Thus given that they didnt attack Belgrade with the same venom as London or New York allied with the amount of their own that they have killed in Iraq simply for the collaboration crime suggests to me that they care more about attacking the pillars of the west to further their agenda than they do protecting/nurturing their islamic brothers.

That's not what it says here. Bin Laden, Iran, and the KLA.

This remarkable prophesy may soon be tested, in the aftermath of 11 September.

Thats from the link above and it wasnt tested,was it ? OBL left Belgrade alone as he had bigger fish to fry and in the meantime he let his own brethren be fried by Milosevic leading me to ask if some muslims are more equal than others in OBLs view of the world.

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote:

Sorry thats wrong. He let him get away with it because he is a wanted man in Iraq

More wanted than in New York or in London now? he seems perfectly capable of orchestrating war in countries where he is a wanted man.

and it is a little bit harder to wage terrorism when even casual dissent is liable to get you killed.

Harder to wage terrorism in saddams Iraq? I'd have thought a suicide bomber could have easily blagged his way into one of Saddams palaces.Lord knows there were enough of them training in Afghanistan willing to do the job if ordered.

If there had have been attacks by OBL on Saddam,I'd put more credence on OBL not having a skewed agenda .

Frank Grimes

Earthman wrote:

Thats from the link above and it wasnt tested,was it ? OBL left Belgrade alone as he had bigger fish to fry and in the meantime he let his own brethren be fried by Milosevic leading me to ask if some muslims are more equal than others in OBLs view of the world.

A lot of the fighters from Afghanistan went on to fight with the Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, just because they didn't bomb Belgrade doesn't mean they ignored what was going on, some links:
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr/bcr_20011005_1_eng.txt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1574796.stm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4686.htm

Frank that third link is absolutely fascinating in detailing how friends fall out assuming theres truth in it.Here we have OBL pseudo co-operating with the heathen.I'd still like to know why he didnt suicide bomb Belgrade or Saddam though.But going back on what hobbes was saying theres no doubt that the athmosphere created by the Iraq invasion made OBL's ability to wage war there almost perfect against his real enemy.

As part of the Dutch government’s inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, Professor Cees Wiebes of Amsterdam University compiled a report entitled ‘Intelligence and the War in Bosnia’, published in April 2002. In it he details the secret alliance between the Pentagon and radical Islamic groups from the Middle East, and their efforts to assist Bosnia’s Muslims. By 1993, there was a vast amount of weapons- smuggling through Croatia to the Muslims, organised by ‘clandestine agencies’ of the USA, Turkey and Iran, in association with a range of Islamic groups that included Afghan mujahedin and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah. Arms bought by Iran and Turkey with the financial backing of Saudi Arabia were airlifted from the Middle East to Bosnia — airlifts with which, Wiebes points out, the USA was ‘very closely involved’.

The Pentagon’s secret alliance with Islamic elements allowed mujahedin fighters to be ‘flown in’, though they were initially reserved as shock troops for particularly hazardous operations against Serb forces. According to a report in the Los Angeles Times in October 2001, from 1992 as many as 4,000 volunteers from the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, ‘known as the mujahedin’, arrived in Bosnia to fight with the Muslims. Richard Holbrooke, America’s former chief Balkans peace negotiator, has said that the Bosnian Muslims ‘wouldn’t have survived’ without the help of the mujahedin, though he later admitted that the arrival of the mujahedin was a ‘pact with the devil’ from which Bosnia is still recovering.