i'd rather blame ignorance and people speaking in half-truths. of course, that describes the media, so there ya go.
Max, it's refreshing to see someone, especially of another faith, admit that. Too often, self proclaimed experts back up their nonsensical claims with Quranic references with absolutely no basic background familiarity and taking no regard for historical context. it's just not a book understood without SOME preliminary knowledge.
Why They Happened The London Bombings By TARIQ ALI There was no public transport in London yesterday afternoon. The underground system was closed and the police were advising people not to go near central London. Casualties are in the hundreds and there are many deaths. The first reaction to the rush-hour bombs on the underground was to suggest they were caused by an electricity surge. Then a tourist bus blew up in Russell Square, in the vicinity of the British Museum. It was obvious that this was no 'electricity surge' but the return of terror attacks to London. During the last phase of 'the troubles', the IRA targeted mainland Britain: they came close to blowing up Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet when they bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton during a Conservative Party Conference. Several months later a missile was fired at 10 Downing Street. London's financial quarter was also targeted causing immense damage to property. There was no secret as to the identity of the organization that carried out the hits or its demands. And all this happened despite the 'internment without trial' and the various Prevention of Terrorism Acts passed by the House of Commons. The bombers who targeted London on 7 July are anonymous. At the time of writing no statement has been issued, but it is assumed that those who carried out these attacks are groups/individuals linked to al-Qaeda. We simply do not know. Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group in existence. It has rivals within the Muslim diaspora. On its web-site today The Economist suggested that "it is not impossible that some anti-capitalist or anti-globalisation group caused the explosions, timing them to coincide with the G8 meeting" but I think that is impossible. There are no currents within the movement for global justice who believe in targeting civilians. It is, therefore, safe to assume that the cause of these bombs is the unstinting support * political and military * given by New Labour and its Prime Minister to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the many arguments deployed by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, when he appealed to Blair not to support the war in Iraq was prescient: 'An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international co-operation and global stability.' The aim of the bombers may have been to disrupt London while Bush and Blair hosted the G8 Summit in a remote Scottish outpost (or perhaps even as a warning signal to the Olympic Committee), but the majority of Londoners (as the rest of the country) were opposed to the war in Iraq. Tragically, it is they who have suffered the blow and paid the price for the re-election of Blair and a continuation of the war. Or as John Lanchester, a highly regarded English novelist who once admired Blair, recently wrote of New Labour: "As for its attitude to America, that is comparable only to the 'coital lock' which makes it impossible to separate dogs during sex." Ever since 9/11, I have been arguing that the 'war against terror' is immoral and counterproductive. It sanctions the the use of state terror----bombing raids, tortures, countless civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq----against Islamo-anarchists whose numbers are small, but whose reach is deadly. The solution then, as now is political, not military. The British ruling elite understood this perfectly well in the case of Ireland. Security measures, anti-terror laws rushed through Parliament, identity cards, a general curtailment of civil liberties of British citizens will not solve the problem. If anything, they will push young Muslims in the direction of a mindless violence. The real solution lies in immediately ending the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. Just because these three wars are reported sporadically and mean little to the everyday life of most of Europe's citizens, this does not mean that the anger and bitterness they arouse in the Muslim world and its diasporas is insignificant. Establishment politicians have little purchase with the young and this applies especially strongly in the Arab world. As long as Western politicians wage their wars and their colleagues in the Muslim world watch in silence, young people will be attracted to the groups who carry out random acts of revenge. At the beginning of the G8 meeting, Tony Blair suggested that 'poverty was the cause of terrorism'. This was advanced thinking for a reactionary politician like him, but it is not so. The principal cause of this violence is the violence that is being inflicted on the people of the Muslim world. The bombing of innocent people is equally barbaric in Baghdad, Jenin, Kabul as it is in New York, Madrid or London. And unless this is recognized the horrors will continue. Tariq Ali is author of the recently released Street Fighting Years (new edition) and, with David Barsamian, Speaking of Empires & Resistance
All human beings are the same, we just listen to what we want to hear, and find anything to support our agenda and arguement. However, Internet is a really good thing, if helps you know more about the world, and shockingly realize that how ignorant we all are, sometimes.
The Muslim countries do a lot to help. The problem is poverty breeds extreme ideologies. Look at UAE, poverty is almost nonexistant and their are no militant based groups from the region. Now in Saudi Arabia, the people hate their monarchy. But any attempts to overthrow this regime will hurt the world economy in such a way that it would bring markets to their knees. And since money talks, the Sauds remain in power. This causes the people to look at them as puppets, and even causes some to join the cause of Qutb. That is to overthrow their regimes. The problem is that their means are against the Qur'an and their justifications are false. And for you bigtexxx, Islam needs no credibility. It is not a fad. You see it from the outside and you will never understand. It is in your favor to discredit Islam as much as you can. Why? You are presumably a Christian. My doctrine contridicts your doctrine. You subconsciously believe that if you can discredit Islam that will mean you will go to Heaven. But neither of our efforts can change the end, so I do not attempt to demonize your faith, or question its credibility. Now, let's continue the discussion on the London Bombings and the reactions from the Islamic states. I thought of this earlier. In Baghdad and throughout Iraq, coordinated bombings occur every other day. More than 50 die like twice a month. Yet, the Christian states (western world is a better phrase) have no reaction. Why is this?
In all fairness though, tex, why is it in their best interests? It's only the Muslims living in Western countries who are obviously torn between patriotism and religious ties who insist on the West viewing Islam favorably. At this point, people in the Middle East don't give a damn what the West thinks of them. And why should they? The damage has already been done. They've already seen their brethren countries blown up and take issue with what they deem to be a hostile and humiliating occupying presence in their lands.
You're probably correct but I doubt that anyone really can be totally knowledgeable of any major religion or totally reconcile contradictions in their scripture and history. I once heard a Muslim scholar describe the Qu'ran as an ocean where you can find almost any type of fish depending on what sort of bait you use. I imagine that applies to the Bible and any other major religious book.
During the height of the IRA terror campaign I don't recall anyone demanding that Catholics should do more to denounce terror. For that matter when Aum Shinrikyu released sarin nerve gas there wasn't a call for Buddhists to denounce terror or they would lose credibility.
the difference here is that WE are the ones invading their lands, acting as a sustained occupying presence, for the so called reason of "building democracy", and we expect to be "welcomed as liberators." if that really is the reason we're giving for our presence, now that the little WMD thing is under the rug, we by all means should care what other countries think.
i'm certainly not defending the action you're talking about... but do you really see the UK and the US as "Christian" states?? man, i live in the US..and I'm a Christian...and I don't see it that way at all.
No, but at the same time I do not label the middle east Islamic states either. I view it as the west.
Well yeah, but Iran is not who was being referenced, it was the entire region. I think Holland or Norway is a Christian state, but it's just the same you wouldn't call Europe the Christian states.
while unfortunate, i don't think you can blame the west. its part of our subconscious nature to feel more empathy for our Anglo Saxon brethren. while the U.S. is certainly not a "Christian" nation (though the recent elections give me doubt), there is something to say for the fact that we stemmed from the same theological roots. i guess we feel that responsibility. i think there's something also to be said that the majority of the west does not view state terrorism with the same condemnation as individual acts of terrorism...
I have a flight tommorow, DC to houston that im definately thinking about delaying due to this bombing and the correlation to the damn security checks at the airport.
