My thoughts on Moslems, Islam and the London Bombs
Discussion
Over the past twenty four hours I have done a lot of thinking and soul searching as to what my response really is to these events, and has it changed since 9/11.
I would have to say it has.
Moslems and Islam are not the enemy. The killers are not members of the human race in any meaningful sense. They are scared and hatred filled men, who fear change and progress within their own societies.
The real reason there is the current tension between the Islamic World and The West is lack of meaningful communication and a lack of real understanding that people the world over are essentially the same. They want to live peaceful lives, safe from harm for them and their children, regardless of race, creed, religion or beliefs.
Islam, like any religion, is only dangerous when taken to the extreme - at which point it ceases to have anything to do with the religion from which it came. Think Christianity and the Ku Klux Klan.
The murderer's who committed yesterday's crimes against humanity acted out of fear. They fear that their own societies will develop to a point where their extreme views become irrelevant. If Moslem's want personal freedoms as so many brave voters in Iraq demonstrated, then the old systems of religious control will fall away.
This does not mean for a moment that these populations will not be Moslem, but simply that they will not allow themselves to be dictated to by a small number of extremists.
The Koran states (in chapter five IIRC) that if you kill one innocent, you kill all of humanity. The perpetrators of these murders are not trying to protect Islam (which is big enough and robust enough to survive any external or internal threats), they are trying to protect themselves and their own interests.
The answer is closer co-operation and communication between The West and the Middle East, with a genuine respect for each other's way of life and a desire to resolve the old issues and problems that are a thorn in the sides of both communities. Unity is strength, and division is what the terrorists seek.
When we work together, and condemn these killers, as the Moslem Council of Great Britain has done very vocally, unequivocally and rapidly this time, the terrorists cease to have any power at all. All they have achieved this time is to strenghthen resolve and bring people closer together.
What they will become is irrelevant. This is exactly what happened to the IRA. The World moved on, and their attitudes and hatreds no longer had any real significance.
There is no war on Islam, or on The West. There never has been. What there is is a small difference of ideologies that the world is plenty big enough to accomodate. Diversity is a good thing, and we may never agree on everything, but we can live together peacefully and harmoniously.
And this is what the terrorists fear most of all.
Over to you.
I would have to say it has.
Moslems and Islam are not the enemy. The killers are not members of the human race in any meaningful sense. They are scared and hatred filled men, who fear change and progress within their own societies.
The real reason there is the current tension between the Islamic World and The West is lack of meaningful communication and a lack of real understanding that people the world over are essentially the same. They want to live peaceful lives, safe from harm for them and their children, regardless of race, creed, religion or beliefs.
Islam, like any religion, is only dangerous when taken to the extreme - at which point it ceases to have anything to do with the religion from which it came. Think Christianity and the Ku Klux Klan.
The murderer's who committed yesterday's crimes against humanity acted out of fear. They fear that their own societies will develop to a point where their extreme views become irrelevant. If Moslem's want personal freedoms as so many brave voters in Iraq demonstrated, then the old systems of religious control will fall away.
This does not mean for a moment that these populations will not be Moslem, but simply that they will not allow themselves to be dictated to by a small number of extremists.
The Koran states (in chapter five IIRC) that if you kill one innocent, you kill all of humanity. The perpetrators of these murders are not trying to protect Islam (which is big enough and robust enough to survive any external or internal threats), they are trying to protect themselves and their own interests.
The answer is closer co-operation and communication between The West and the Middle East, with a genuine respect for each other's way of life and a desire to resolve the old issues and problems that are a thorn in the sides of both communities. Unity is strength, and division is what the terrorists seek.
When we work together, and condemn these killers, as the Moslem Council of Great Britain has done very vocally, unequivocally and rapidly this time, the terrorists cease to have any power at all. All they have achieved this time is to strenghthen resolve and bring people closer together.
What they will become is irrelevant. This is exactly what happened to the IRA. The World moved on, and their attitudes and hatreds no longer had any real significance.
There is no war on Islam, or on The West. There never has been. What there is is a small difference of ideologies that the world is plenty big enough to accomodate. Diversity is a good thing, and we may never agree on everything, but we can live together peacefully and harmoniously.
And this is what the terrorists fear most of all.
Over to you.
Its not that simple though, I don't think. And I reckon the main reason for conflict between the West and East is because the West won't stop attacking the East.
The west has always attacked the east. Someone on another thread mentioned 'conflict' in the east back to the crusades. When talking about the crusades, 'conflict' is one description, but isn't 'ethnic cleansing' a bit more accurate? On another thread someone said 'they', I think he was referring to Islam, managed to get into Europe briefly. But christianity is exactly the same as Islam in that it is a religion, but christians trying to achieve world domination is not seen as a bad thing in the west.
I was totally opposed to the war on Iraq. I'm sure there might have been some justification on the attack, just like I'm sure somebody (usually the pope) justified each and every attack on the middle east over the centuries. In the case of the current attack, we are of course still waiting to hear the justification, or one that bears scrutiny at least.
The one thing that has surprised me about the attack on London is that it didn't happen sooner. You simply cannot wage war on another country and think you're not going to get whacked back.
People are calling the terrorists cowards, but was bombing what was effectively a thirld world state with B52 bombers from 50,000 ft an act of bravery? Was attacking an impoverished nation with all the modern and devastating technology the west could muster an act of bravery? Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning the bravery of those on the ground, those who have to do the dirty work for our politicians. But I do question the collective act of what we and the US has done.
We are supposed to be waging a war on terror. There has never been one iota of evidence, not one I understand, linking Iraq with 9/11. Yet we and the US has seemingly given up on the perps of 9/11 and decided to attract a whole new enemy instead by attacking Iraq. Many of the organisors and those who funded 9/11 are still out there. They're obviously very competent people with few scruples. What reason is there to think they won't be able to stage another huge atrocity? How was attacking Iraq helping in the war on terror, and how does Blair justify his claims that the world is now a safer place without Saddam? For all I know, Saddam at least kept a lid on the factions in Iraq just like Tito did in the former Yugoslavia.
If anyone still thinks Britain and the US is a shining light in the battle against evil, consider what happened to Craig Murray, our former ambassador to Uzbekistan. I just happened to hear him on the Radio4 prog 'On The Ropes' earlier this week. The upshot is, that because this thoroughly decent man found he couldn't work with the atrocities happening in Uzbekistan, our wonderful Foriegn Office charged him on 18 counts, including charges of alcoholism and exchanging visas for sex. Of the 18 charges 16 were dropped. I don't know if the remaing 2 stuck or not. But thats 16 trumped up charges just because someone spoke out against another Saddam Hussein. The only difference between Islam Karimov and Saddam Hussein is that Karimov allows the US to maintain an air base in Uzbekistan. Saddam used to be a darling of the west as well, untill he fell out of favour. Then suddenly he was a very nasty man.
Have a read about Craig Murray at www.craigmurray.org.uk/weblog.html
If you scroll down you can hear the programme, but scroll further and read the piece "Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? - Lies, Damn Lies, and the Vengeful Dieting of Eric Cartman.
By Mohammad Ziauddin"
Have a look here
The west has always attacked the east. Someone on another thread mentioned 'conflict' in the east back to the crusades. When talking about the crusades, 'conflict' is one description, but isn't 'ethnic cleansing' a bit more accurate? On another thread someone said 'they', I think he was referring to Islam, managed to get into Europe briefly. But christianity is exactly the same as Islam in that it is a religion, but christians trying to achieve world domination is not seen as a bad thing in the west.
I was totally opposed to the war on Iraq. I'm sure there might have been some justification on the attack, just like I'm sure somebody (usually the pope) justified each and every attack on the middle east over the centuries. In the case of the current attack, we are of course still waiting to hear the justification, or one that bears scrutiny at least.
The one thing that has surprised me about the attack on London is that it didn't happen sooner. You simply cannot wage war on another country and think you're not going to get whacked back.
People are calling the terrorists cowards, but was bombing what was effectively a thirld world state with B52 bombers from 50,000 ft an act of bravery? Was attacking an impoverished nation with all the modern and devastating technology the west could muster an act of bravery? Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning the bravery of those on the ground, those who have to do the dirty work for our politicians. But I do question the collective act of what we and the US has done.
We are supposed to be waging a war on terror. There has never been one iota of evidence, not one I understand, linking Iraq with 9/11. Yet we and the US has seemingly given up on the perps of 9/11 and decided to attract a whole new enemy instead by attacking Iraq. Many of the organisors and those who funded 9/11 are still out there. They're obviously very competent people with few scruples. What reason is there to think they won't be able to stage another huge atrocity? How was attacking Iraq helping in the war on terror, and how does Blair justify his claims that the world is now a safer place without Saddam? For all I know, Saddam at least kept a lid on the factions in Iraq just like Tito did in the former Yugoslavia.
If anyone still thinks Britain and the US is a shining light in the battle against evil, consider what happened to Craig Murray, our former ambassador to Uzbekistan. I just happened to hear him on the Radio4 prog 'On The Ropes' earlier this week. The upshot is, that because this thoroughly decent man found he couldn't work with the atrocities happening in Uzbekistan, our wonderful Foriegn Office charged him on 18 counts, including charges of alcoholism and exchanging visas for sex. Of the 18 charges 16 were dropped. I don't know if the remaing 2 stuck or not. But thats 16 trumped up charges just because someone spoke out against another Saddam Hussein. The only difference between Islam Karimov and Saddam Hussein is that Karimov allows the US to maintain an air base in Uzbekistan. Saddam used to be a darling of the west as well, untill he fell out of favour. Then suddenly he was a very nasty man.
Have a read about Craig Murray at www.craigmurray.org.uk/weblog.html
If you scroll down you can hear the programme, but scroll further and read the piece "Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? - Lies, Damn Lies, and the Vengeful Dieting of Eric Cartman.
By Mohammad Ziauddin"
Have a look here
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Many Arabs see these changes as being dictated to them at gunpoint.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We voted for the government that sends warships, fighter planes, spies and troops to their countries. We are collectively responsible, this is a democracy. In their eyes we are equally guilty, not innocent. I don't like it either, but they have a point.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No.
We've been fighting them for over a thousand years. The Crusades. The invasion of Spain. The invasion of eastern Europe. The British and French in the Middle East and North Africa. American support for Isreal. Deliberate destabalisation of governments in the Cold War. Desert Storm.
Can you imagine the American reaction if an Arab nation sailed a giant fleet of warships up and down the East Coast of America, sent warplanes over their skies, threatened regime change by invasion, invaded one state and then proceeded to tell the remainder of the US that they must not have Nuclear Weapons because the Arabs didn't like it?
Face it. We provoked them.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes
cymtriks said:
We voted for the government that sends warships, fighter planes, spies and troops to their countries. We are collectively responsible, this is a democracy. In their eyes we are equally guilty, not innocent. I don't like it either, but they have a point.
Totally agree, but don't forget that Howard said that he too would have gone to war. (He didn't say on what grounds, mind.)
It was at that point that I decided to vote labour, for local reasons. Since '97, and more so in recent years, the Tories must have been the most ineffectual opposition since - well, I was going to say since all time, but now I recall Kinnock.
heebeegeetee said:
Its not that simple though, I don't think. And I reckon the main reason for conflict between the West and East is because the West won't stop attacking the East.
This is nothing to do with the West vs East.
We forget that groups like AQ want an Islamic world. They want everyone in the world to be a Muslim. The problem is that the US is in their way.
The problem is that we have an oil addiction. The day we kick that middle east habit will be a good day. Whoever controls our oil controls our lives. Do you want AQ in control of your petrol station or do you want the might of the US Armed Forces?
The act of attacking the UK is nothing more than desperate.
tinman0 said:
Its not that simple though, I don't think. And I reckon the main reason for conflict between the West and East is because the West won't stop attacking the East.
This is nothing to do with the West vs East.
We forget that groups like AQ want an Islamic world. They want everyone in the world to be a Muslim. The problem is that the US is in their way.
The problem is that we have an oil addiction. The day we kick that middle east habit will be a good day. Whoever controls our oil controls our lives. Do you want AQ in control of your petrol station or do you want the might of the US Armed Forces?
The act of attacking the UK is nothing more than desperate.
He who controls the Spice...
Great deal of sense from Alex.
I fink the idea that East and West have always fought needs examination. You could just as easily say that we have always been at war with the French. But you would clearly be wrong to think that the wars we have had with France had the same cause, or that it is inevitable that we will always be at war with the French. The Norman conquest did not logically lead on to the Napoleonic wars. Similarly the conflicts btwn western nations and eastern nations weren't all part of a single bigger conflict. They had many different causes. They were punctuated by extended periods of peace and cooperation. It may be a convenient short hand to talk about a large scale and prolonged clash of cultures, but when you peel away the surface and look at the individual conflicts you see the real picture is much more complicated and much less homogenous.
I fink the idea that East and West have always fought needs examination. You could just as easily say that we have always been at war with the French. But you would clearly be wrong to think that the wars we have had with France had the same cause, or that it is inevitable that we will always be at war with the French. The Norman conquest did not logically lead on to the Napoleonic wars. Similarly the conflicts btwn western nations and eastern nations weren't all part of a single bigger conflict. They had many different causes. They were punctuated by extended periods of peace and cooperation. It may be a convenient short hand to talk about a large scale and prolonged clash of cultures, but when you peel away the surface and look at the individual conflicts you see the real picture is much more complicated and much less homogenous.
tinman0 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Its not that simple though, I don't think. And I reckon the main reason for conflict between the West and East is because the West won't stop attacking the East.
This is nothing to do with the West vs East.
We forget that groups like AQ want an Islamic world. They want everyone in the world to be a Muslim. The problem is that the US is in their way.
The problem is that we have an oil addiction. The day we kick that middle east habit will be a good day. Whoever controls our oil controls our lives. Do you want AQ in control of your petrol station or do you want the might of the US Armed Forces?
The act of attacking the UK is nothing more than desperate.
Not sure how you can say its not an West against East considering that yet again the West has attacked the East.
We don't know whether we've been got at by AQ or by an Iraqi faction or allies thereof. But given that we're at war with iraq (and IMO we are, despite our leaders telling us the was is over) surely its entirely natural to expect an attack back. We bombed them now they've bombed us. What's the problem? If we can't take the heat we should stay out of the kitchen, its as simple as that.
Re AQ. Havn't we, ie the coalition, completely dropped that ball? It seems for whatever reason the US (with the UK) has given up on AQ and gone off to gather a completely fresh set of enemies. Seems total madness, but then what was madder than starting a war and invading another country for no apparent reason whatsoever?
I could understand things more if once it was decided there were no WMDs Blair resigned, as a leader who has made a terrible mistake should, but he hasn't.
And we need to consider: Thanks to us as a nation Iraq is going through a terrible time. The people are really suffering. We back home here are carrying on as normal. I think the Olympic celebrations showed that. For many of us, the war, the Iraqi's, the under equipped soldiers dieing out there, none of it is on our radar.
Well it is now. Why are we suddenly shocked?
This is all IMO, of course. I'm just surprised that this hasn't happened sooner, given how long the war has been on. Perhaps it isn't an Iraqi faction and is AQ. But, like I say, we gave up on AQ and went and attacked someone else instead, which is just crazy, so again, we shouldn't be surprised by all this.
>> Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 9th July 14:17
heebeegeetee said:
heebeegeetee said:
Its not that simple though, I don't think. And I reckon the main reason for conflict between the West and East is because the West won't stop attacking the East.
This is nothing to do with the West vs East.
We forget that groups like AQ want an Islamic world. They want everyone in the world to be a Muslim. The problem is that the US is in their way.
The problem is that we have an oil addiction. The day we kick that middle east habit will be a good day. Whoever controls our oil controls our lives. Do you want AQ in control of your petrol station or do you want the might of the US Armed Forces?
The act of attacking the UK is nothing more than desperate.
Not sure how you can say its not an West against East considering that yet again the West has attacked the East.
We don't know whether we've been got at by AQ or by an Iraqi faction or allies thereof. But given that we're at war with iraq (and IMO we are, despite our leaders telling us the was is over) surely its entirely natural to expect an attack back. We bombed them now they've bombed us. What's the problem? If we can't take the heat we should stay out of the kitchen, its as simple as that.
Re AQ. Havn't we, ie the coalition, completely dropped that ball? It seems for whatever reason the US (with the UK) has given up on AQ and gone off to gather a completely fresh set of enemies. Seems total madness, but then what was madder than starting a war and invading another country for no apparent reason whatsoever?
I could understand things more if once it was decided there were no WMDs Blair resigned, as a leader who has made a terrible mistake should, but he hasn't.
And we need to consider: Thanks to us as a nation Iraq is going through a terrible time. The people are really suffering. We back home here are carrying on as normal. I think the Olympic celebrations showed that. For many of us, the war, the Iraqi's, the under equipped soldiers dieing out there, none of it is on our radar.
Well it is now. Why are we suddenly shocked?
This is all IMO, of course. I'm just surprised that this hasn't happened sooner, given how long the war has been on. Perhaps it isn't an Iraqi faction and is AQ. But, like I say, we gave up on AQ and went and attacked someone else instead, which is just crazy, so again, we shouldn't be surprised by all this.
>> Edited by heebeegeetee on Saturday 9th July 14:17
There seems to be two schools of thought forming about the causes of this attack.
One school, is saying that the terrorists are attacking our way of life and that they would have attacked us whether we had invaded iraq or not.
Blair was very quick to use this argument in his speech. Of course, he wont want to feel in anyway responsible.
I am certain that there is some truth in this theory especially when it comes to the leaders of Al Qaeda.(except OBL- his reasons are more political I guess)
However.... The recruits, the ones who actually commit these acts , are the really significant terrorists and will definately be motivated to join these movements by what appears to them to be the raping of a muslim country for oil, which was no threat to the UK US. (the rights and wrongs of Iraq are a separate issue)
So there is truth in both schools of thought, but we need to realise, that OBL is a nobody without these bombers.
Somewhere in the back of his stupid little mind, im sure Blair is regretting his dumb move.
tinman0 said:
Yeah, Iraq was such a nice place before we turned up.
Well, what do we know about daily life in Iraq? What was life like for ordinary people? I suppose you have to consider life before and after sanctions were imposed. My understanding is along the lines of them at least having electricity and running water, which most don't seem to have now. And I rather guess that people could queue for bread etc without being blown up.
I worry that it just might be that Iraq is now in a far worse state than it was before, and that life for ordinary people was actually better under Saddam than it is under Bush and Blair. And what is the outlook for Iraq? We have absolutely no idea and neither does Bush or Blair.
I am starting to wonder if Saddam at least kept a lid on all the insurgents, just like Tito did with Yugoslavia. Tito died and Yugo tore itself apart along with the brutal deaths of millions. Is the same going to happen in Iraq?
And as bad as Saddam was, we have no idea who will eventually be top honcho of Iraq, we don't know whether he will be better or worse than Saddam, and we don't know how many will die in the process.
Its a terrible mess, we started it, and I wouldn't be surprised if more of us have to suffer along the way.
Whatever happens though, we won't suffer as much as the Iraqis.
From what I've heard, these appear to be NOT suicide bombers.
Straight away that brings every other bunch of nutters from the IRA to the Wannabe-IRA to ETA to the Animal Lib Front to Greenpeace to French sheep-farmers to a bunch of students who read about explosives on the internet, into the frame.
But it probably is the ragheads.
Straight away that brings every other bunch of nutters from the IRA to the Wannabe-IRA to ETA to the Animal Lib Front to Greenpeace to French sheep-farmers to a bunch of students who read about explosives on the internet, into the frame.
But it probably is the ragheads.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff