Not Again - London Tube Alert

[Castro]

Unfortunately, the death of that Brazilian dude will be classified as a case of "see what you made me do" and will be swept under the rug.

 

Speaking of Wikipedia, here's Chomsky's take on terrorism. Some would disagree. I don't.

 

In response to US declarations of a War on Terrorism in 1981 and 2001, Chomsky has argued that the major sources of international terrorism are the world's major powers, led by the United States. He uses a definition of terrorism from a U.S. Army manual, which describes it as, “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.†Thus he posits that terrorism is an objective description of certain actions, whether the agents are state or non-state. In relation to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan he stated:

 

"Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism." (9-11, p. 76)

 

On the efficiency of terrorism:

 

"One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn't fail. It works. Violence usually works. That's world history. Secondly, it's a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it's primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn't count as terror. Now that's close to universal. I can't think of a historical exception, even the worst mass murderers view the world that way. So take the Nazis. They weren't carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror."

 

Chomsky on terrorism (continued)

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Afromali:

How vague is a direct and straight forward question?

Very vague in the circumstantial factor. to Die from A suicide operation is vague. What prompted the suicide operation? Let's look at this way; someone is related to A, A killed B for no reason, C (a relative of B) got close to A and detonated a bomb, taking him/herself along with A. Now, the relative (someone) of A, knew what A did; how does he/she feels about what A did and its causal effects? If that someone is a moron, he/she would excuse A, and assign all the blame on B.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Afromali:

WILL you[Hadaad] Justify,Understand and Forgive?

Depending on the circumstancial factor, yes.

[NGONGE]

Fidel,

 

I’m not sure I understand your question, saaxib. No matter what the religious affiliations of the group involved, one’s moral judgment would remain the same. Killing civilians is wrong and can not be excused away by the nature of the ‘struggle’, the type of people involved or the transgressions of the enemy. Some moral positions should never change, regardless of the situation.

 

Kashafa,

 

I’m sure you understand the difference between the system and random cases, saaxib. Are you saying such laws do not exist? Are you saying there is no chance of an enquiry taking place? Are you saying if an enquiry does take place there is NO chance of the outcome of it to be fair?

 

Though this is an entirely different argument and would take us away from the point I was making (which was, just in case you forgot, that enquiries do take place when there is a wrongdoing. The evil bombers know of NO such things though), I thought I would still try to understand the aim of your little tantrum about poor Ahmed Diallo!

 

As for the source about the IRA and ETA, look harder, saaxib.

 

PS

What exactly is your position on all of this by the way?

 

 

Originally posted by Haddad:

quote:Originally posted by Afromali:

the rationale here is that so many innocent ppl[58 to be exact] died.

You're wrong. Those

innocent ppl

elected the UK government. The UK government is the

innocent ppl

's representative. They empowered the UK government to act on behalf of them. Not only that, they extended the mandate of its government, by awarding it another term. They gave the UK government a mandate to do what they see is fit for the UK's interests. The UK government serves its

innocent ppl

; isn't that what democracy is about?

Do you read what you write before you post it, saaxib?

Now, is it that you don’t understand the concept of democracy and the fact that in a democracy not all voters vote for the eventual winner! Or are you being your usual unprincipled self? I know you’ll avoid me as you always do but if you believe in the message of the killers of civilians an think it fair, come right out and say it. Sell their logic and belief. Don’t use weak and convoluted arguments such as the one above. For if anyone should follow your mad logic, they too could blow your brains out and excuse it by saying that you’re a Muslim and Muslims kill civilians (88 dead in Egypt now, but those didn’t elect their government, they allowed a dictator to lead them, right?).

[Faarax-Brawn]

Hadad.

 

I thought i said "precisly the Recent London Bombings".

 

Butt just incase you missed it.I will say it again.

 

Will you[Hadaad] Forgive,Justify and Understand Had you[been hurt][Or had a member of your family,died], In the recent Bombing in london.

 

This should clear the 'circumstancial tagging', i hope as i am NON VAGUE and specific.Or since we know of the circumstances that brought about this BOMBING.

 

Now,that am quite clear,without any circumstantial ties or lack off,could you be Specific?[Or try to at least].

[Haddad]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

...come right out and say it.

Why?

Originally posted by Afromali:

Will you[Hadaad] Forgive,Justify and Understand Had you[been hurt][Or had a member of your family,died], In the recent Bombing in london.

Will involves knowledge of the future, which I or no human possesses. Simply, I don't exactly know how I Will react. Again, the question is vague, and let me add deficient. It could have been asked in a different way, like; is it possible/probable that I Forgive,Justify and Understand?

[N.O.R.F]

The mis-education of our yourth today ey :rolleyes:

 

Killing civilians is wrong and can not be excused away by the nature of the ‘struggle’

Simply put for simple ppl!

 

Haddad and Kashafa, i just cant see you two packing your bags and fighting in Iraq for some reason :confused:

 

Save us your misinformed 'palava' and take your views to Iraq if all you do is justify/excuse and condone innocents dying (spelling).

 

The UK govnt is to blame for Iraq, not the majority of ppl who were against it. These are facts you should before posting your 'illness' here.

 

One wonders if you actually listen to our Imams/shieks at all :confused: If so, then why do you have these views? Do you believe your views are correct under Islamic/Sheria laws? If so, how???

 

Please answer the questions above in as much detail as possible and do not avoid it. If you do (avoid them), i will no longer engage in any discussion with yourself due to the 'simple' fact that you are arguing for the sake of it!

[Faarax-Brawn]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

...come right out and say it.

 

 

Why?

Hadaad: I think this explains why You dont want to answer the Q.

 

I asked my Question Based on how i felt like Phrasing . Not the Way THAT SUITS your answers.

 

You'd make a very good 'spin doctor'[if you are not already one].

 

I think my session for the day is done. Enjoy your wknd.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Northerner:

The UK govnt is to blame for Iraq, not the majority of ppl who were against it.

The UK government is the servant of UK citizens. That's what democracy is about.

 

Definition:

Democracy

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

[SoMa_InC]

The man mistakenly shot dead by police in the belief that he was linked to a series of attempted bomb attacks has been named by police.

 

 

Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian, was killed by officers on Friday as he tried to board a Tube train at Stockwell, south London

Source

[Kashafa]

Northener,

 

The mis-education of our yourth today ey

And the senility and infirmity of our old heads... Lord have mercy

 

which is worse ?

 

That said.. you might do us a favour by being more specific. Exactly which Imams and Sheiks are you talking about ? and what views...? Don't throw out a generic question and expect a detailed answer. Holla

 

Ngonge,

 

Your point stands. 'Semeblances' of a inquiry do take place. My point stands as well. The inquiry is selective and can be easily manipulated. Ahmed Diallo is just but one example. I can write volumes on other cases. So yes, the system, although corrupt, does have a semblance

of a inquiry. In this specific case(subway shooting), my wager still stands. The Officers will not be found guilty(although they are)

 

As for the ETA/IRA, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Artistic license with facts isn't really admirable. Unless, of course, you desperately need to bolster your argument. It can be understood then.

 

PS

What exactly is your position on all of this by the way?

An earlier post summarises my position:

 

Apparent Motive: To strike back at the UK for it's involvement in Iraq. Force a "Spain-like" withdrawal.

 

Will it work: Tentatively, Yes. There's only so much carnage the public can stomach. "Get out of Iraq/Bombs will stop" will become more and more appealing.

 

Justified: No

 

Should have been expected: Absolutely. Tit-for-Tat. Newton's 3rd Law.

 

Will happen again: More than likely

 

Who are the bombers: Young muslims with the right intentions but wrong methods

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Fidel,

Killing civilians is wrong and can not be excused away by the nature of the ‘struggle’, the type of people involved or the transgressions of the enemy. Some moral positions should never change, regardless of the situation.

Thanks for the response. According to the Iraq Body Count website, the only entity that tracks death of civilians in Iraq, 25,915 civilians have been killed there. A non trivial percentage of that is directly from air bombing by coalition forces. That my friend is terrorism. It is sanctioned terrorism by a coalition wearing uniforms, speaking softly and carrying a big stick. And it is not morally justifiable. Same with the London bombings. But the two are morally equivalent.

[NGONGE]

Kashafa,

I’m not out here to teach you about the world; I’m here to debate with you. If you can’t find out about simple information such as the IRA and ETA warning systems, I’m really not interested in a debate with you, my friend. Had it been big theories or complicated laws, I would have taken up your childish accusation and provided you with proof (or a link as you call it). However, since the trivial point that I made is one that is widespread (as widespread as the comment: George Bush is the president of the United States), I shall not dignify your query with an answer and would urge you to try and keep up.

 

Fidel,

You’ve gone the long way about comparing one transgression with another there!

Now I wonder if I repeated my questions from the previous thread, are you going to engage me or will you run like Haddad did?

 

Never mind, I’ll ask anyway. We already know who the invaders of Iraq are, but, who are these people that blow up trains and kill civilians? Is there a way of finding them and fighting back? Did the air bombing set out to kill civilians or were they merely “collateral damage� Remember, we are making moral judgments here, intention matters.

 

I said it before and I say it again, if we try to use the “an eye for an eye†principle to justify the London bombings, then the coalition could also just as easily justify their Iraq occupation. In such scenarios morality gets sacrificed for practicality, emotion and expedience. It might look good, it might sound good and it might even seem like an expected outcome! That does not make it RIGHT.

One can go on a tangent on every issue and start to justify actions on the basis of grievances and transgressions. That will only lead to an unending circle of violence and the complete eradication of our values and principles.

 

 

Yesterday, another terrorist attack took place in Egypt. Eighty eight people are reported dead so far. Few foreigners and many Egyptians! Was this too the result of the Iraq occupation? Could this too be brushed away with simple definitions of ‘terrorism’?

 

PS

Iraq count is an estimation and not exact figures (of course, it’s very likely that the figures might be even more than what the count states).

[- Femme -]

Ya'll need to stop the useless bickering and shut the hell up....119 responses for an 'alarm' but not even one thread for the 89 people who died in Egypt. Or were they not 'innocent' also?

 

Uff.

[Kashafa]

I’m not out here to teach you about the world; I’m here to debate with you

Ok. I'm game. A basic part of debating is to provide sources when your assertions are challenged. Otherwise it's not called debating, it's called "spittin' out drivel' regardless of factual content". I can say that you, good friend, look like a hybrid of Scary Spice and Sebastion Coe, unless I provide a picture(will do so upon request, jk !), it's nothing more than drivel. are u gettin' it ? Good. Onto more important matters.

 

We already know who the invaders of Iraq are, but, who are these people that blow up trains and kill civilians? Is there a way of finding them and fighting back? Did the air bombing set out to kill civilians or were they merely “collateral damage�

See Ngonge, You got a good racket going on here. You jump on the "We gotta fix Islam" bandwagon and use that to vilify any resistance to Western occupation using the catch-phrase: terrorist. Anybody who doesn't agree: terrorist-lover.

 

For arguments sake, Let's say the terrorist united under one banner, one leadership, and decided to attack exclusively military targets in the UK and USA. Any civilian casualties would be brushed off as "collateral damage"(as u so deftly put it). Would that be justifiable ?

 

It's not too complicated so don't overthink.

 

That my friend is terrorism. It is sanctioned terrorism by a coalition wearing uniforms, speaking softly and carrying a big stick. And it is not morally justifiable. Same with the London bombings. But the two are morally equivalent

The whole issue can be summed up by these 2 lines courtesy of Fidel. Both are transgessions and you cannot justify one while vilifying the other. They are EQUALLY wrong. The whole equation falls apart when u add a BUT..

 

as in.. "Yes BUT...

 

A) The Coalition forces and other terrorist groups(ETA/IRA) use early warning systems, Muslims(see how you use the word collectively) don't

B)Coaliton forces primarily target insurgents(false btw) while Muslims(again generic use) primarily target innocent civilians.

C) whatever other faulty logic u can come up with.

 

You can do better. Up ur game.